↓ Skip to main content

Matching positive end-expiratory pressure to intra-abdominal pressure improves oxygenation in a porcine sick lung model of intra-abdominal hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Matching positive end-expiratory pressure to intra-abdominal pressure improves oxygenation in a porcine sick lung model of intra-abdominal hypertension
Published in
Critical Care, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11840
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian Regli, Rohan Mahendran, Edward T Fysh, Brigit Roberts, Bill Noffsinger, Bart L De Keulenaer, Bhajan Singh, Peter V van Heerden

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) causes atelectasis, reduces lung volumes and increases respiratory system elastance. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in the setting of IAH and healthy lungs improves lung volumes but not oxygenation. However, critically ill patients with IAH often suffer from acute lung injury (ALI). This study, therefore, examined the respiratory and cardiac effects of positive end-expiratory pressure in an animal model of IAH, with sick lungs. METHODS: Nine pigs were anesthetized and ventilated (48 +/- 6 kg). Lung injury was induced with oleic acid. Three levels of intra-abdominal pressure (baseline, 18, and 22 mmHg) were randomly generated. At each level of intra-abdominal pressure, three levels of PEEP were randomly applied: baseline (5 cmH2O), moderate (0.5 × intra-abdominal pressure), and high (1.0 × intra-abdominal pressure). We measured end-expiratory lung volumes, arterial oxygen levels, respiratory mechanics, and cardiac output 10 minutes after each new IAP and PEEP setting. RESULTS: At baseline PEEP, IAH (22 mmHg) decreased oxygen levels (-55%, P <0.001) and end-expiratory lung volumes (-45%, P = 0.007). At IAP of 22 mmHg, moderate and high PEEP increased oxygen levels (+60%, P = 0.04 and +162%, P <0.001) and end-expiratory lung volume (+44%, P = 0.02 and +279%, P <0.001) and high PEEP reduced cardiac output (-30%, P = 0.04). Shunt and dead-space fraction inversely correlated with oxygen levels and end-expiratory lung volumes. In the presence of IAH, lung, chest wall and respiratory system elastance increased. Subsequently, PEEP decreased respiratory system elastance by decreasing chest wall elastance. CONCLUSIONS: In a porcine sick lung model of IAH, PEEP matched to intra-abdominal pressure led to increased lung volumes and oxygenation and decreased chest wall elastance shunt and dead-space fraction. High PEEP decreased cardiac output. The study shows that lung injury influences the effects of IAH and PEEP on oxygenation and respiratory mechanics. Our findings support the application of PEEP in the setting of acute lung injury and IAH.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 4%
France 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 42 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 26%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 55%
Engineering 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 12 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,387,928
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,749
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,781
of 202,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#58
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 202,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.