↓ Skip to main content

Airway driving pressure and lung stress in ARDS patients

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
75 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
148 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
271 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
Airway driving pressure and lung stress in ARDS patients
Published in
Critical Care, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1446-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Davide Chiumello, Eleonora Carlesso, Matteo Brioni, Massimo Cressoni

Abstract

Lung-protective ventilation strategy suggests the use of low tidal volume, depending on ideal body weight, and adequate levels of PEEP. However, reducing tidal volume according to ideal body weight does not always prevent overstress and overstrain. On the contrary, titrating mechanical ventilation on airway driving pressure, computed as airway pressure changes from PEEP to end-inspiratory plateau pressure, equivalent to the ratio between the tidal volume and compliance of respiratory system, should better reflect lung injury. However, possible changes in chest wall elastance could affect the reliability of airway driving pressure. The aim of this study was to evaluate if airway driving pressure could accurately predict lung stress (the pressure generated into the lung due to PEEP and tidal volume). One hundred and fifty ARDS patients were enrolled. At 5 and 15 cmH2O of PEEP, lung stress, driving pressure, lung and chest wall elastance were measured. The applied tidal volume (mL/kg of ideal body weight) was not related to lung gas volume (r (2) = 0.0005 p = 0.772). Patients were divided according to an airway driving pressure lower and equal/higher than 15 cmH2O (the lower and higher airway driving pressure groups). At both PEEP levels, the higher airway driving pressure group had a significantly higher lung stress, respiratory system and lung elastance compared to the lower airway driving pressure group. Airway driving pressure was significantly related to lung stress (r (2) = 0.581 p < 0.0001 and r (2) = 0.353 p < 0.0001 at 5 and 15 cmH2O of PEEP). For a lung stress of 24 and 26 cmH2O, the optimal cutoff value for the airway driving pressure were 15.0 cmH2O (ROC AUC 0.85, 95 % CI = 0.782-0.922); and 16.7 (ROC AUC 0.84, 95 % CI = 0.742-0.936). Airway driving pressure can detect lung overstress with an acceptable accuracy. However, further studies are needed to establish if these limits could be used for ventilator settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 75 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 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 264 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 33 12%
Other 30 11%
Student > Postgraduate 27 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 8%
Student > Bachelor 22 8%
Other 60 22%
Unknown 76 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 153 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 9%
Engineering 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 <1%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 9 3%
Unknown 75 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 February 2021.
All research outputs
#782,975
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#574
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,024
of 355,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#24
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 355,248 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.