Effect of PEEP, blood volume, and inspiratory hold maneuvers on venous return
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to Guyton's model of circulation, mean systemic filling pressure (MSFP), right atrial pressure (RAP), and resistance to venous return (RVR) determine venous return. MSFP has been estimated from inspiratory hold-induced changes in RAP and blood flow. We studied the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and blood volume on venous return and MSFP in pigs. MSFP was measured by balloon occlusion of the right atrium (MSFPRAO), and the MSFP obtained via extrapolation of pressure-flow relationships with airway occlusion (MSFPinsp_hold) was extrapolated from RAP/pulmonary artery flow (QPA) relationships during inspiratory holds at PEEP 5 and 10 cmH2O, after bleeding, and in hypervolemia. MSFPRAO increased with PEEP [PEEP 5, 12.9 (SD 2.5) mmHg; PEEP 10, 14.0 (SD 2.6) mmHg, P = 0.002] without change in QPA [2.75 (SD 0.43) vs. 2.56 (SD 0.45) l/min, P = 0.094]. MSFPRAO decreased after bleeding and increased in hypervolemia [10.8 (SD 2.2) and 16.4 (SD 3.0) mmHg, respectively, P < 0.001], with parallel changes in QPA Neither PEEP nor volume state altered RVR (P = 0.489). MSFPinsp_hold overestimated MSFPRAO [16.5 (SD 5.8) vs. 13.6 (SD 3.2) mmHg, P = 0.001; mean difference 3.0 (SD 5.1) mmHg]. Inspiratory holds shifted the RAP/QPA relationship rightward in euvolemia because inferior vena cava flow (QIVC) recovered early after an inspiratory hold nadir. The QIVC nadir was lowest after bleeding [36% (SD 24%) of preinspiratory hold at 15 cmH2O inspiratory pressure], and the QIVC recovery was most complete at the lowest inspiratory pressures independent of volume state [range from 80% (SD 7%) after bleeding to 103% (SD 8%) at PEEP 10 cmH2O of QIVC before inspiratory hold]. The QIVC recovery thus defends venous return, possibly via hepatosplanchnic vascular waterfall.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".