Trial reportPloS one2026
Open versus closed suctioning on lung volume and oxygenation in ARDS patients with PEEP 5-10 cmH2O: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effects of open suctioning (OS) versus closed suctioning (CS) on lung volume and oxygenation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients receiving mechanical ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5-10 cmH2O.
methodsThis single-center, prospective randomized controlled trial enrolled 60 ARDS patients, who were randomly assigned to OS (n = 30) or CS (n = 30). All patients received lung-protective ventilation with volume-controlled mode. SpO2 was recorded before suctioning and at 1, 10, 20, and 30 minutes post-suctioning. Arterial blood gas analysis was performed at 30 minutes to calculate the oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO2). Changes in end-expiratory lung impedance (ΔEELI) were monitored using electrical impedance tomography (EIT) for the whole lung and four regions of interest (ROI). Secondary outcomes included extubation and survival, analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression.
resultsThe absolute values of global ΔEELI were significantly lower in the CS group than in the OS group at 1 minute (-0.54 ± 0.18 vs. -2.32 ± 1.34, P < .001) and 10 minutes (-0.31 ± 0.25 vs. -1.14 ± 0.80, P < .001) after suctioning, indicating that CS better preserved lung volume. However, lung volume recovered more rapidly in the OS group, returning to baseline by 20 minutes, whereas recovery in the CS group was not achieved until 30 minutes. Regional analysis showed that the protective effect of CS was primarily observed in non-dependent regions (ROI 1-3), with no significant difference in the gravity-dependent ROI 4 (P = .430). SpO2 was significantly lower in the OS group than in the CS group at 1 minute post-suctioning (98.07 ± 1.26% vs. 99.03 ± 0.93%, P = .007), and returned to baseline by 20 minutes in the OS group versus 10 minutes in the CS group. No significant difference in oxygenation index was observed at 30 minutes (P = .329). Secondary outcomes, including extubation and survival, did not differ significantly between the two groups (all P > .050). No adverse events were recorded.
conclusionsIn ARDS patients receiving PEEP 5-10 cmH2O, CS reduces lung volume loss during suctioning and better preserves early oxygenation, but results in slower post-suctioning lung volume recovery compared with OS. These findings reveal a physiologically important trade-off between the two methods, though their clinical relevance warrants further investigation in larger, outcome-focused trials.
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.