ReviewAnnals of intensive care2026
When mechanical power remains high despite conventional lung-protective settings: a physiology-driven bedside framework.
Review in Annals of intensive care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mechanical power integrates ventilatory pressure, tidal volume, flow, and respiratory rate into a single estimate of the energy transferred to the respiratory system per unit time. Higher mechanical power has been associated with ventilator-induced lung injury and worse outcomes. A common bedside dilemma arises when mechanical power remains high despite conventional lung-protective settings, because further reduction of ventilator intensity may compromise gas exchange. This narrative, physiology-driven review addresses how to respond when persistently elevated mechanical power may reflect physiological constraint rather than easily modifiable ventilator settings. We outline a bedside approach in which clinicians first verify conventional lung-protective settings and then look for the main physiological factor that prevents further ventilator reduction. Reduced end-expiratory lung volume should prompt individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration aimed at restoring and stabilizing lung volume while avoiding overdistension and derecruitment. In mechanically heterogeneous lungs, prone positioning and patient-specific pressure optimization may improve the physiological conditions associated with injurious ventilation, even when the global value of mechanical power cannot be safely lowered. During assisted ventilation, excessive respiratory drive and inspiratory effort should be assessed and treated when present. When high mechanical power remains unavoidable despite optimized settings and targeted physiological interventions, extracorporeal support may be required to enable ultra-protective ventilation.
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.