↓ Skip to main content

A diaphragmatic electrical activity-based optimization strategy during pressure support ventilation improves synchronization but does not impact work of breathing

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
A diaphragmatic electrical activity-based optimization strategy during pressure support ventilation improves synchronization but does not impact work of breathing
Published in
Critical Care, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1599-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francois Beloncle, Lise Piquilloud, Nuttapol Rittayamai, Christer Sinderby, Hadrien Rozé, Laurent Brochard

Abstract

Poor patient-ventilator synchronization is often observed during pressure support ventilation (PSV) and has been associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation and poor outcome. Diaphragmatic electrical activity (Eadi) recorded using specialized nasogastric tubes is a surrogate of respiratory brain stem output. This study aimed at testing whether adapting ventilator settings during PSV using a protocolized Eadi-based optimization strategy, or Eadi-triggered and -cycled assisted pressure ventilation (or PSVN) could (1) improve patient-ventilator interaction and (2) reduce or normalize patient respiratory effort as estimated by the work of breathing (WOB) and the pressure time product (PTP). This was a prospective cross-over study. Patients with a known chronic pulmonary obstructive or restrictive disease, asynchronies or suspected intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) who were ventilated using PSV were enrolled in the study. Four different ventilator settings were sequentially applied for 15 minutes (step 1: baseline PSV as set by the clinician, step 2: Eadi-optimized PSV to adjust PS level, inspiratory trigger, and cycling settings, step 3: step 2 + PEEP adjustment, step 4: PSVN). The same settings as step 3 were applied again after step 4 to rule out a potential effect of time. Breathing pattern, trigger delay (Td), inspiratory time in excess (Tiex), pressure-time product (PTP), and work of breathing (WOB) were measured at the end of each step. Eleven patients were enrolled in the study. Eadi-optimized PSV reduced Td without altering Tiex in comparison with baseline PSV. PSVN reduced Td and Tiex in comparison with baseline and Eadi-optimized PSV. Respiratory pattern did not change during the four steps. The improvement in patient-ventilator interaction did not lead to changes in WOB or PTP. Eadi-optimized PSV allows improving patient ventilator interaction but does not alter patient effort in patients with mild asynchrony. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT 02067403 . Registered 7 February 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 17%
Other 13 14%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 29 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Psychology 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 34 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#5,229,489
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,402
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,146
of 424,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#47
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 424,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.