Skip to main content

Erratum to: 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

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.

Figure 1
figure1

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.

Figure 2
figure2

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.

Figure 3
figure3

Pao 2 /Fio 2 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.

Figure 4
figure4

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. 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: R145-10.1186/cc7125.

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diederik Gommers.

Additional information

The online version of the original article can be found at 10.1186/cc7125

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bikker, I.G., van Bommel, J., Miranda, D.R. et al. Erratum to: 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 13, 430 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/cc8196

Download citation