Respiratory failure & ventilation
Flow–controlled ventilation: A systematic review of preclinical and clinical studies
Authors' conclusion
FCV may improve ventilatory efficiency and oxygenation without adverse hemodynamic effects.
Study context
- Population
- Preclinical and clinical studies comparing flow-controlled ventilation (FCV) with conventional ventilation10 preclinical, 10 clinical studies
- Comparison
- FCV vs conventional ventilation
- Outcome
- Ventilatory parameters, respiratory mechanics, gas exchange
Methodological detailsqualitative synthesis, MEDLINE and CENTRAL searched through May 2026
- Qualitative synthesis
- MEDLINE and CENTRAL searched through May 2026
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- Preclinical: consistently lower respiratory rate and minute ventilation with FCV, oxygenation and CO2 control maintained or improved
- Clinical, compliance-guided titration (6 studies): generally lower respiratory rate and minute ventilation, CO2 control maintained, often improved oxygenation
- Clinical, fixed or protocolized targets (4 studies): more variable physiological effects
- Certainty of clinical evidence low to moderate
Safety
- No consistent adverse hemodynamic effects reported
Original publication
Flow–controlled ventilation: A systematic review of preclinical and clinical studies. J Clin Anesth. Published 11 September 2026. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →