CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 194Respiratory Support and MechanismsNeonatal Respiratory Health ResearchNosocomial Infections in ICU

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Oxygenation Response to Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Predicts Mortality in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. A Secondary Analysis of the LOVS and ExPress Trials

Goligher, Ewan C., Kavanagh, Brian P., Rubenfeld, Gordon D., Adhikari, Neill K. J., Pinto, Ruxandra, Fan, Eddy, Brochard, Laurent J., Granton, John T., Mercat, Alain, Marie Richard, Jean-Christophe, Chretien, Jean-Marie, Jones, Graham L., Cook, Deborah J., Stewart, Thomas E., Slutsky, Arthur S., Meade, Maureen O., Ferguson, Niall D.·2014·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
DOI 10.1164/rccm.201404-0688oc
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Rationale: Previous trials of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) failed to demonstrate mortality benefit, possibly because of differences in lung recruitability among patients with ARDS. Objectives: To determine whether the physiological response to increased PEEP is associated with mortality. Methods: In a secondary analysis of the Lung Open Ventilation Study (LOVS, n = 983), we examined the relationship between the initial response to changes in PEEP after randomization and mortality. We sought to corroborate our findings using data from a different trial of higher PEEP (ExPress, n = 749). Measurements and Main Results: The oxygenation response (change in ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen: P/F) after the initial change in PEEP after randomization varied widely (median, 9.5 mm Hg; interquartile range, –16 to 47) and was only weakly related to baseline P/F or the magnitude of PEEP change. Among patients in whom PEEP was increased after randomization, an increase in P/F was associated with reduced mortality (multivariable logistic regression; adjusted odds ratio, 0.80 [95% confidence interval, 0.72–0.89] per 25–mm Hg increase in P/F), particularly in patients with severe disease (baseline P/F [less-than-or-equal-to] 150 mm Hg). Changes in compliance and dead space were not associated with mortality. These findings were confirmed by a similar analysis of data from the ExPress trial. Conclusions: Patients with ARDS who respond to increased PEEP by improved oxygenation have a lower risk of death. The oxygenation response to PEEP might be used to predict whether patients will benefit from higher versus lower PEEP.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1164/rccm.201404-0688oc

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Goligher, 2012, Oxygenation response to increased PEEP predicts mortality in acute lung injury: a secondary analysis of the Lung Open Ventilation Study (LOVS) trial [abstract], Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 185, A1158
  2. Matamis, 1984, Redistribution of pulmonary blood flow induced by positive end-expiratory pressure and dopamine infusion in acute respiratory failure, Am Rev Respir Dis, 129, 39

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 194

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Goligher, E. C., Kavanagh, B. P., Rubenfeld, G. D., Adhikari, N. K. J., Pinto, R., Fan, E., Brochard, L. J., Granton, J. T., Mercat, A., Marie Richard, J.-C., Chretien, J.-M., Jones, G. L., Cook, D. J., Stewart, T. E., Slutsky, A. S., Meade, M. O., & Ferguson, N. D.
Affiliations
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Sunnybrook Health Science Centre (CA)
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers (FR)
  • Département de Réanimation Médicale et Unité Propre de Recherche et de l’Enseignement Supérieur 38-30, CHU de Rouen, Rouen, France
  • Délégation à la Recherche Clinique et à l’Innovation, CHU d’Angers, Angers, France; and
  • Department of Medicine and
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Ferguson, Niall D.
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2014-07-01
Volume
190
Issue
1
Pages
70-76
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
DOI
10.1164/rccm.201404-0688oc
OpenAlex
W2082012484
Cited by
194
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 3
FWCI
17.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
academic.oup.com/pages/standard-publication-reuse-rights (vor)
Locations
  • American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Neonatal Respiratory Health Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Nosocomial Infections in ICU
Keywords
acute respiratory distress syndrome, positive end-expiratory pressure, oxygenation response, mortality prediction, lung recruitability, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, mechanical ventilation, lung compliance, dead space
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Oxygen Consumption, Positive-Pressure Respiration, Prognosis, Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Severity of Illness Index, Tidal Volume, Logistic Models, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review