↓ Skip to main content

Clinical outcomes of patients requiring ventilatory support in Brazilian intensive care units: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 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
Clinical outcomes of patients requiring ventilatory support in Brazilian intensive care units: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study
Published in
Critical Care, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12594
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luciano CP Azevedo, Marcelo Park, Jorge IF Salluh, Alvaro Rea-Neto, Vicente C Souza-Dantas, Pedro Varaschin, Mirella C Oliveira, Paulo Fernando GMM Tierno, Felipe dal-Pizzol, Ulysses VA Silva, Marcos Knibel, Antonio P Nassar, Rossine A Alves, Juliana C Ferreira, Cassiano Teixeira, Valeria Rezende, Amadeu Martinez, Paula M Luciano, Guilherme Schettino, Marcio Soares, The ERICC (Epidemiology of Respiratory Insufficiency in Critical Care) investigators

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Contemporary information on mechanical ventilation (MV) use in emerging countries is limited. Moreover, most epidemiological studies on ventilatory support were carried out before significant developments, such as lung protective ventilation or broader application of non-invasive ventilation (NIV). We aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for hospital mortality and failure of NIV in patients requiring ventilatory support in Brazilian intensive care units (ICU). METHODS: In a multicenter, prospective, cohort study, a total of 773 adult patients admitted to 45 ICUs over a two-month period requiring invasive ventilation or NIV for more than 24 hours were evaluated. Causes of ventilatory support, prior chronic health status and physiological data were assessed. Multivariate analysis was used to identifiy variables associated with hospital mortality and NIV failure. RESULTS: Invasive MV and NIV were used as initial ventilatory support in 622 (80%) and 151 (20%) patients. Failure with subsequent intubation occurred in 54% of NIV patients. The main reasons for ventilatory support were pneumonia (27%), neurologic disorders (19%) and non-pulmonary sepsis (12%). ICU and hospital mortality rates were 34% and 42%. Using the Berlin definition, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was diagnosed in 31% of the patients with a hospital mortality of 52%. In the multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio (OR), 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01 to 1.03), comorbidities (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.28 to 3.17), associated organ failures (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.20), moderate (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.10 to 3.35) to severe ARDS (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.01 to 4.41), cumulative fluid balance over the first 72 h of ICU (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.39 to 4.28), higher lactate (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.50), invasive MV (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.32 to 5.39) and NIV failure (OR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.74 to 8.99) were independently associated with hospital mortality. The predictors of NIV failure were the severity of associated organ dysfunctions (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.34), ARDS (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.82) and positive fluid balance (OR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.02 to 4.30). CONCLUSIONS: Current mortality of ventilated patients in Brazil is elevated. Implementation of judicious fluid therapy and a watchful use and monitoring of NIV patients are potential targets to improve outcomes in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01268410.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 179 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 27 15%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Postgraduate 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 9%
Student > Master 15 8%
Other 46 25%
Unknown 39 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Engineering 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 46 25%
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 24 April 2013.
All research outputs
#14,599,159
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,804
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,617
of 212,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#89
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 212,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.