Abstract
To the Editor: The absence of benefits observed by Pepe et al. (Aug. 2 issue)1 in the prevention of the adult respiratory-distress syndrome by early application of prophylactic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and the editorial in the same issue could be misleading to the practicing critical-care physician. The failure of early PEEP to provide any significant protection in the high-risk group is no surprise to us, since the pathogenesis of this syndrome is complex and still not completely understood. It seems illogical to expect that by merely maintaining pressures of 8 cm H2O in the airways at the.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1321-1322 |
| Number of pages | 2 |
| Journal | New England Journal of Medicine |
| Volume | 311 |
| Issue number | 20 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Nov 15 1984 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Medicine(all)
Cite this
PEEP to Prevent Adult Respiratory-Distress Syndrome. / Teba, Luis; Dedhia, Harakh V.; Ryerson, Susan; Fairley, H. Barrie; Katz, Jeffrey A.; Pepe, Paul E.; Hudson, Leonard D.; Carrico, C. James.
In: New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 311, No. 20, 15.11.1984, p. 1321-1322.Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - PEEP to Prevent Adult Respiratory-Distress Syndrome
AU - Teba, Luis
AU - Dedhia, Harakh V.
AU - Ryerson, Susan
AU - Fairley, H. Barrie
AU - Katz, Jeffrey A.
AU - Pepe, Paul E.
AU - Hudson, Leonard D.
AU - Carrico, C. James
PY - 1984/11/15
Y1 - 1984/11/15
N2 - To the Editor: The absence of benefits observed by Pepe et al. (Aug. 2 issue)1 in the prevention of the adult respiratory-distress syndrome by early application of prophylactic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and the editorial in the same issue could be misleading to the practicing critical-care physician. The failure of early PEEP to provide any significant protection in the high-risk group is no surprise to us, since the pathogenesis of this syndrome is complex and still not completely understood. It seems illogical to expect that by merely maintaining pressures of 8 cm H2O in the airways at the.
AB - To the Editor: The absence of benefits observed by Pepe et al. (Aug. 2 issue)1 in the prevention of the adult respiratory-distress syndrome by early application of prophylactic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and the editorial in the same issue could be misleading to the practicing critical-care physician. The failure of early PEEP to provide any significant protection in the high-risk group is no surprise to us, since the pathogenesis of this syndrome is complex and still not completely understood. It seems illogical to expect that by merely maintaining pressures of 8 cm H2O in the airways at the.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0021688827&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0021688827&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1056/NEJM198411153112016
DO - 10.1056/NEJM198411153112016
M3 - Letter
C2 - 6387487
AN - SCOPUS:0021688827
VL - 311
SP - 1321
EP - 1322
JO - New England Journal of Medicine
JF - New England Journal of Medicine
SN - 0028-4793
IS - 20
ER -