Why the study?
Does Positive End-Expiratory Pressure affect Central Venous Pressure in patients under mechanical ventilation?
Observational (n=60)
No
Does Positive End-Expiratory Pressure affect Central Venous Pressure in patients under mechanical ventilation?
Mean Difference: 2.47
p-value: p=<0.001
In mechanically ventilated patients, changes in PEEP do not appear to be dependent on baseline CVP levels, sex, history of cardiac failure, or hypertension.
Baseline CVP does not predict PEEP-induced changes; leaves open whether CVP reliably guides fluid or ventilation decisions in ventilated patients.
INTRODUCTION: Finding the probable governing pattern of PEEP and CVP changes is an area of interest for in-charge physicians and researchers. Therefore, the present study was designed with the aim of evaluating the relationship between the mentioned pressures. METHODS: O PEEPs and the respective CVPs of the mentioned points were recorded. The relationship of CVP and PEEP in different cut points were measured using SPSS 21.0 statistical software. RESULTS: O (p = 0.292) PEEP changes were not dependent on the baseline level of CVP. CONCLUSION: O (2.5 vs. 1.6). It seems that sex, history of cardiac failure, baseline CVP level, and hypertension do not have a significant effect in this regard.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shojaee et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Mechanical ventilation (n=60). Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) increase vs. Baseline PEEP was evaluated on Mean difference in central venous pressure (CVP) after a 5 cmH2O increase in PEEP from baseline 0 (MD 2.47, p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: