Critical Care

official impact factor 4.60
Search for
Advanced search
Critical Care
Tools
Share this article
Correction

Correction: End-expiratory lung volume during mechanical ventilation: a comparison with reference values and the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure in intensive care unit patients with different lung conditions

Ido G Bikker, Jasper van Bommel, Dinis R Miranda, Jan Bakker and Diederik Gommers*

Author Affiliations

Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Erasmus MC, 's Gravendijkwal 230, 3015 CE Rotterdam, The Netherlands

For all author emails, please log on.

Critical Care 2008, 13:430 doi:10.1186/cc8196


The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://ccforum.com/content/13/6/430


Published:15 December 2009

© 2009 BioMed Central Ltd

Correction

Following the publication of our article [1] we noticed that three of the figures were incorrectly numbered and positioned with respect to the figure legends.

The complete set of correct figures (Figure 1, 2, 3 and 4) follows below. Figures 2, 3 and 4 appeared incorrectly in the original article.

thumbnailFigure 1. Progression of EELV in individual patients over three stepwise reductions in PEEP. Mean EELV values at each PEEP level are presented as black dots. Patients are divided according to the type of lung condition. Patients in group N had normal lungs, those in group P had a primary lung disorder, and those in group S had a secondary lung disorder. EELV, end-expiratory lung volume; PBW, predicted body weight; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure.

thumbnailFigure 2. Measured EELV as percentage of predicted sitting FRC at three PEEP levels. The black dotted line represent predicted sitting FRC (100%). Patients in group N had normal lungs, those in group P had a primary lung disorder, and those in group S had a secondary lung disorder. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. EELV, end-expiratory lung volume; FiO2, inspired oxygen fraction; FRC, functional residual capacity; Pao2, arterial oxygen tension; PEEP, positive end- expiratory pressure.

thumbnailFigure 3. Pao2/Fio2 ratio in different types of lung conditions at three PEEP levels. Patients in group N had normal lungs, those in group P had a primary lung disorder, and those in group S had a secondary lung disorder. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. EELV, end-expiratory lung volume; FiO2, inspired oxygen fraction; Pao2, arterial oxygen tension; PBW, predicted body weight; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure.

thumbnailFigure 4. Correlation between change in EELV and change in dynamic compliance. Data are presented as the difference between the lowest PEEP level (5 cmH2O) and 10 or 15 cmH2O PEEP. Patients in group N had normal lungs, those in group P had a primary lung disorder, and those in group S had a secondary lung disorder. EELV, end-expiratory lung volume; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure.

References

  1. Bikker IG, van Bommel J, Reis Miranda D, Bakker J, Gommers D: End-expiratory lung volume during mechanical ventilation: a comparison with reference values and the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure in intensive care unit patients with different lung conditions.

    Crit Care 2008, 12:R145. PubMed Abstract | BioMed Central Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL