↓ Skip to main content

Noninvasive ventilation for avoidance of reintubation in patients with various cough strength

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Noninvasive ventilation for avoidance of reintubation in patients with various cough strength
Published in
Critical Care, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1493-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun Duan, Xiaoli Han, Shicong Huang, Linfu Bai

Abstract

Reintubation is associated with high mortality. Identification of methods to avoid reintubation is needed. The aim of this study was to assess whether prophylactic noninvasive ventilation (NIV) would benefit patients with various cough strengths. We prospectively enrolled 356 patients who successfully passed a spontaneous breathing trial in a respiratory intensive care unit. Before extubation, cough peak flow was measured. After extubation, attending physicians determined whether the patients would receive prophylactic NIV or conventional oxygen treatment (control group). Patients were followed up to 90 days postextubation or death, whichever came first. The median value of cough peak flow was 70 L/minute. Among the patients with cough peak flow ≤70 L/minute, 108 received NIV and 72 received conventional oxygen treatment. In this cohort, NIV reduced reintubation (9 % vs. 35 % at postextubation 72 h, p < 0.01; and 24 % vs. 49 % at postextubation 7 days, p < 0.01) and postextubation 90-day mortality (43 % vs. 61 %, p = 0.02) compared with the control group. Further, use of NIV was an independent protective factor for reintubation (OR = 0.19, p < 0.01 at 72 h postextubation; and OR = 0.33, p < 0.01 at 7 days postextubation) and for death at 90 days postextubation (OR = 0.40, p = 0.02). Among patients with cough peak flow >70 L/minute, 71 received NIV and 105 received conventional oxygen treatment. In this cohort, NIV did not reduce reintubation (6 % vs. 6 % at 72 h postextubation, p > 0.99; and 9 % vs. 9 % at 7 days postextubation, p > 0.99) or postextubation 90-day mortality (21 % vs. 15 %, p = 0.32) compared with the control group. Further, use of NIV was not associated with reintubation or postextubation 90-day mortality. In a planned extubated population, prophylactic NIV benefited patients with weak cough but possibly not in patients with strong cough.

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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 21 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 23 39%
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 10 October 2016.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,396
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,599
of 327,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#88
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 327,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.