↓ Skip to main content

Effects of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist on air distribution and dead space in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2017
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Effects of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist on air distribution and dead space in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Critical Care, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1714-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qin Sun, Ling Liu, Chun Pan, Zhanqi Zhao, Jingyuan Xu, Airan Liu, Haibo Qiu

Abstract

Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) could improve patient-ventilator interaction; its effects on ventilation distribution and dead space are still unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of varying levels of assist during NAVA and pressure support ventilation (PSV) on ventilation distribution and dead space in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Fifteen mechanically ventilated patients with AECOPD were included in the study. The initial PSV levels were set to 10 cmH2O for 10 min. Thereafter, the ventilator mode was changed to NAVA for another 10 min with the same electrical activity of the diaphragm as during PSV. Furthermore, the ventilation mode was switched between PSV and NAVA every 10 min in the following order: PSV 5 cmH2O; NAVA 50%; PSV 15 cmH2O; and NAVA 150% (relative to the initial NAVA support level). Ventilation distribution in the lung was evaluated in percentages in regions of interest (ROI) of four anteroposterior segments of equal height (ROI1 to ROI4 represents ventral, mid-ventral, mid-dorsal, and dorsal, respectively). Blood gases, ventilation distribution (electrical impedance tomography), diaphragm activity (B-mode ultrasonography), and dead space fraction (PeCO2 and PaCO2) were measured. The trigger and cycle delays were lower during NAVA than during PSV. The work of trigger was significantly lower during NAVA compared to PSV. The diaphragm activities based on ultrasonography were higher during NAVA compared to the same support level during PSV. The ventilation distribution in ROI4 increased significantly (P < 0.05) during NAVA compared to PSV (except for a support level of 50%). Similar results were found in ROI3 + 4. NAVA reduced dead space fraction compared to the corresponding support level of PSV. NAVA was superior to PSV in AECOPD for increasing ventilation distribution in ROI4 and reducing dead space. Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02289573 . Registered on 12 November 2014.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 19%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Other 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 26 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,308,746
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,668
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,231
of 331,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#56
of 85 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 86th 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 331,648 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.