↓ Skip to main content

The future of mechanical ventilation: lessons from the present and the past

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2017
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
199 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
526 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
The future of mechanical ventilation: lessons from the present and the past
Published in
Critical Care, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1750-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luciano Gattinoni, John J. Marini, Francesca Collino, Giorgia Maiolo, Francesca Rapetti, Tommaso Tonetti, Francesco Vasques, Michael Quintel

Abstract

The adverse effects of mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) arise from two main causes: unphysiological increases of transpulmonary pressure and unphysiological increases/decreases of pleural pressure during positive or negative pressure ventilation. The transpulmonary pressure-related side effects primarily account for ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) while the pleural pressure-related side effects primarily account for hemodynamic alterations. The changes of transpulmonary pressure and pleural pressure resulting from a given applied driving pressure depend on the relative elastances of the lung and chest wall. The term 'volutrauma' should refer to excessive strain, while 'barotrauma' should refer to excessive stress. Strains exceeding 1.5, corresponding to a stress above ~20 cmH2O in humans, are severely damaging in experimental animals. Apart from high tidal volumes and high transpulmonary pressures, the respiratory rate and inspiratory flow may also play roles in the genesis of VILI. We do not know which fraction of mortality is attributable to VILI with ventilation comparable to that reported in recent clinical practice surveys (tidal volume ~7.5 ml/kg, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ~8 cmH2O, rate ~20 bpm, associated mortality ~35%). Therefore, a more complete and individually personalized understanding of ARDS lung mechanics and its interaction with the ventilator is needed to improve future care. Knowledge of functional lung size would allow the quantitative estimation of strain. The determination of lung inhomogeneity/stress raisers would help assess local stresses; the measurement of lung recruitability would guide PEEP selection to optimize lung size and homogeneity. Finding a safety threshold for mechanical power, normalized to functional lung volume and tissue heterogeneity, may help precisely define the safety limits of ventilating the individual in question. When a mechanical ventilation set cannot be found to avoid an excessive risk of VILI, alternative methods (such as the artificial lung) should be considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 315 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 526 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 526 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 69 13%
Researcher 65 12%
Student > Postgraduate 53 10%
Student > Master 41 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 41 8%
Other 125 24%
Unknown 132 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 286 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 6%
Engineering 28 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 <1%
Other 24 5%
Unknown 145 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 211. 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 14 January 2023.
All research outputs
#186,921
of 25,706,302 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#77
of 6,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,858
of 325,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#2
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,706,302 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,603 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 325,738 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 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 98% of its contemporaries.