ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Expert recommendations for setting and adjusting airway pressure release ventilation based on clinical experience and basic science evidence.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Airway Pressure Release Ventilation with a Time-Controlled Adaptive Ventilation Strategy (APRV-TCAV) Reverses Endotracheal Secretion Movement Compared with Volume-Control Ventilation: A Bench Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Airway pressure release ventilation in acute severe asthma: a case series and physiologic framework.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We conducted a roundtable discussion and provided evidence-based guidance on the setting and adjustment of Airway Pressure Release Ventilation (APRV) in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: A panel of clinicians and basic scientists with extensive experience in lung physiology and using APRV was assembled to provide expert consensus guidance. The panel first established and agreed upon guiding principles for optimal APRV settings. To support consensus discussions, we then reviewed the literature on the physiological basis of APRV as a lung-protective ventilation strategy, as well as published APRV research. Finally, we held a one-day meeting and conducted robust, iterative consensus discussions using the Nominal Group Technique to reach agreement on the optimal APRV settings. This work represents an Expert Recommendation and Position Statement rather than a formal consensus guideline. The recommendations were developed through iterative expert discussions that integrated extensive clinical experience with supporting basic science evidence on time-controlled ventilation and alveolar mechanics. Recommendations were based on expert experience with APRV in the intensive care unit and supported by published animal and clinical studies. Results: Consensus on initial APRV settings for acute lung injury (ALI) such as ARDS or disorders of normal or increased elstance was as follows: set the upper airway pressure (P Conclusion: The panel developed a protocol for adjusting the four APRV settings based on expert experience and solid clinical and scientific evidence for patients with ALI and ARDS, or disorders of normal or increased elastance. Optimizing the lung-protective settings in APRV mode can improve patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.