↓ Skip to main content

Physiological effects of invasive ventilation with neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) in a crossover study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Physiological effects of invasive ventilation with neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) in a crossover study
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12887-016-0717-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-Michel Liet, François Barrière, Bénédicte Gaillard-Le Roux, Pierre Bourgoin, Arnaud Legrand, Nicolas Joram

Abstract

Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) is a mode of assisted mechanical ventilation that delivers inspiratory pressure proportionally to the electrical activity of the diaphragm. To date, no pediatric study has focused on the effects of NAVA on hemodynamic parameters. This physiologic study with a randomized cross-over design compared hemodynamic parameters when NAVA or conventional ventilation (CV) was applied. After a baseline period, infants received NAVA and CV in a randomized order during two consecutive 30-min periods. During the last 10 min of each period, respiratory and hemodynamic parameters were collected. No changes in PEEP, FiO2, sedation or inotropic doses were allowed during these two periods. The challenge was to keep minute volumes constant, with no changes in blood CO2 levels and in pH that may affect the results. Six infants who had undergone cardiac surgery (mean age 7.8 ± 4.1 months) were studied after parental consent. Four of them had low central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2 < 65 %). The ventilatory settings resulted in similar minute volumes (1.7 ± 0.4 vs. 1.6 ± 0.6 ml/kg, P = 0.67) and in similar tidal volumes respectively with NAVA and with CV. There were no statistically significant differences on blood pH levels between the two modes of ventilation (7.32 ± 0.02 vs. 7.32 ± 0.04, P = 0.34). Ventilation with NAVA delivered lower peak inspiratory pressures than with CV: -32.7 % (95 % CI: -48.2 to -17.1 %, P = 0.04). With regard to hemodynamics, systolic arterial pressures were higher using NAVA: +8.4 % (95 % CI: +3.3 to +13.6 %, P = 0.03). There were no statistically significant differences on cardiac index between the two modes of ventilation. However, all children with a low baseline ScvO2 (<65 %) tended to increase their cardiac index with NAVA compared to CV: 2.03 ± 0.30 vs. 1.91 ± 0.39 L/min.m(2) (median ± interquartile, P = 0.07). This pilot study raises the hypothesis that NAVA could have beneficial effects on hemodynamics in children when compared to a conventional ventilatory mode that delivered identical PEEP and similar minute volumes. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01490710 . Date of registration: December 7, 2011.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Psychology 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 17 32%

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 09 November 2019.
All research outputs
#8,700,127
of 16,578,610 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#1,066
of 2,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,617
of 394,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#47
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,578,610 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,117 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 394,470 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 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 67% of its contemporaries.