↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Helmet and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 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 review: Helmet and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients
Published in
Critical Care, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc11875
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio M Esquinas Rodriguez, Peter J Papadakos, Michele Carron, Roberto Cosentini, Davide Chiumello

Abstract

Non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV) has proved to be an excellent technique in selected critically ill patients with different forms of acute respiratory failure. However, NIV can fail on account of the severity of the disease and technical problems, particularly at the interface. The helmet could be an alternative interface compared to face mask to improve NIV success. We performed a clinical review to investigate the main physiological and clinical studies assessing the efficacy and related issues of NIV delivered with a helmet. A computerized search strategy of MEDLINE/PubMed (January 2000 to May 2012) and EMBASE (January 2000 to May 2012) was conducted limiting the search to retrospective, prospective, nonrandomized and randomized trials. We analyzed 152 studies from which 33 were selected, 12 physiological and 21 clinical (879 patients). The physiological studies showed that NIV with helmet could predispose to CO2 rebreathing and increase the patients' ventilator asynchrony. The main indications for NIV were acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (community-acquired pneumonia, postoperative and immunocompromised patients) and hypercapnic acute respiratory failure. In 9 of the 21 studies the helmet was compared to a face mask during either continous positive airway pressure or pressure support ventilation. In eight studies oxygenation was similar in the two groups, while the intubation rate was similar in four and lower in three studies for the helmet group compared to face mask group. The outcome was similar in six studies. The tolerance was better with the helmet in six of the studies. Although these data are limited, NIV delivered by helmet could be a safe alternative to the face mask in patients with acute respiratory failure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 151 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 148 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 13%
Other 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 36 24%
Unknown 40 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Engineering 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Environmental Science 2 1%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 48 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 25 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,783,766
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,582
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,330
of 205,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#8
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 well, scoring higher than 75% 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 205,934 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.