↓ Skip to main content

Effect of driving pressure on mortality in ARDS patients during lung protective mechanical ventilation in two randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
55 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
172 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
328 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
Effect of driving pressure on mortality in ARDS patients during lung protective mechanical ventilation in two randomized controlled trials
Published in
Critical Care, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1556-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claude Guérin, Laurent Papazian, Jean Reignier, Louis Ayzac, Anderson Loundou, Jean-Marie Forel, on behalf of the investigators of the Acurasys and Proseva trials

Abstract

Driving pressure (ΔPrs) across the respiratory system is suggested as the strongest predictor of hospital mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We wonder whether this result is related to the range of tidal volume (VT). Therefore, we investigated ΔPrs in two trials in which strict lung-protective mechanical ventilation was applied in ARDS. Our working hypothesis was that ΔPrs is a risk factor for mortality just like compliance (Crs) or plateau pressure (Pplat,rs) of the respiratory system. We performed secondary analysis of data from 787 ARDS patients enrolled in two independent randomized controlled trials evaluating distinct adjunctive techniques while they were ventilated as in the low VT arm of the ARDSnet trial. For this study, we used VT, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), Pplat,rs, Crs, ΔPrs, and respiratory rate recorded 24 hours after randomization, and compared them between survivors and nonsurvivors at day 90. Patients were followed for 90 days after inclusion. Cox proportional hazard modeling was used for mortality at day 90. If colinearity between ΔPrs, Crs, and Pplat,rs was verified, specific Cox models were used for each of them. Both trials enrolled 805 patients of whom 787 had day-1 data available, and 533 of these survived. In the univariate analysis, ΔPrs averaged 13.7 ± 3.7 and 12.8 ± 3.7 cmH2O (P = 0.002) in nonsurvivors and survivors, respectively. Colinearity between ΔPrs, Crs and Pplat,rs, which was expected as these variables are mathematically coupled, was statistically significant. Hazard ratios from the Cox models for day-90 mortality were 1.05 (1.02-1.08) (P = 0.005), 1.05 (1.01-1.08) (P = 0.008) and 0.985 (0.972-0.985) (P = 0.029) for ΔPrs, Pplat,rs and Crs, respectively. PEEP and VT were not associated with death in any model. When ventilating patients with low VT, ΔPrs is a risk factor for death in ARDS patients, as is Pplat,rs or Crs. As our data originated from trials from which most ARDS patients were excluded due to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, these findings must be validated in independent observational studies in patients ventilated with a lung protective strategy. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00299650 . Registered 6 March 2006 for the Acurasys trial. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00527813 . Registered 10 September 2007 for the Proseva trial.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 328 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 326 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 39 12%
Researcher 38 12%
Student > Postgraduate 38 12%
Student > Bachelor 26 8%
Student > Master 25 8%
Other 72 22%
Unknown 90 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 174 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 1%
Psychology 3 <1%
Engineering 3 <1%
Other 13 4%
Unknown 104 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 16 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,150,307
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#947
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,961
of 416,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#18
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th 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 well, scoring higher than 85% 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 416,861 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.