↓ Skip to main content

Endotracheal tube cuff pressure in three hospitals, and the volume required to produce an appropriate cuff pressure

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, November 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
163 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Endotracheal tube cuff pressure in three hospitals, and the volume required to produce an appropriate cuff pressure
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, November 2004
DOI 10.1186/1471-2253-4-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Papiya Sengupta, Daniel I Sessler, Paul Maglinger, Spencer Wells, Alicia Vogt, Jaleel Durrani, Anupama Wadhwa

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cuff pressure in endotracheal (ET) tubes should be in the range of 20-30 cm H2O. We tested the hypothesis that the tube cuff is inadequately inflated when manometers are not used. METHODS: With IRB approval, we studied 93 patients under general anesthesia with an ET tube in place in one teaching and two private hospitals. Anesthetists were blinded to study purpose. Cuff pressure in tube sizes 7.0 to 8.5 mm was evaluated 60 min after induction of general anesthesia using a manometer connected to the cuff pilot balloon. Nitrous oxide was disallowed. After deflating the cuff, we reinflated it in 0.5-ml increments until pressure was 20 cmH2O. RESULTS: Neither patient morphometrics, institution, experience of anesthesia provider, nor tube size influenced measured cuff pressure (35.3 +/- 21.6 cmH2O). Only 27% of pressures were within 20-30 cmH2O; 27% exceeded 40 cmH2O. Although it varied considerably, the amount of air required to achieve a cuff pressure of 20 cmH2O was similar with each tube size. CONCLUSION: We recommend that ET cuff pressure be set and monitored with a manometer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 137 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 26 18%
Researcher 22 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Master 13 9%
Other 11 8%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Engineering 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 4%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 31 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2023.
All research outputs
#6,915,761
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#258
of 1,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,340
of 140,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,478 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 140,227 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them