↓ Skip to main content

Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for patients with acute respiratory failure secondary to the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2014
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 (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
34 X users

Readers on

mendeley
160 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
Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal for patients with acute respiratory failure secondary to the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review
Published in
Critical Care, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/cc13875
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marianne Fitzgerald, Jonathan Millar, Bronagh Blackwood, Andrew Davies, Stephen J Brett, Daniel F McAuley, James J McNamee

Abstract

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) continues to have significant mortality and morbidity. The only intervention proven to reduce mortality is the use of lung-protective mechanical ventilation strategies, although such a strategy may lead to problematic hypercapnia. Extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO₂R) devices allow uncoupling of ventilation from oxygenation, thereby removing carbon dioxide and facilitating lower tidal volume ventilation. We performed a systematic review to assess efficacy, complication rates, and utility of ECCO₂R devices. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), case-control studies and case series with 10 or more patients. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS (Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde), and ISI Web of Science, in addition to grey literature and clinical trials registries. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers against predefined criteria and agreement was reached by consensus. Outcomes of interest included mortality, intensive care and hospital lengths of stay, respiratory parameters and complications. The review included 14 studies with 495 patients (two RCTs and 12 observational studies). Arteriovenous ECCO₂R was used in seven studies, and venovenous ECCO₂R in seven studies. Available evidence suggests no mortality benefit to ECCO₂R, although post hoc analysis of data from the most recent RCT showed an improvement in ventilator-free days in more severe ARDS. Organ failure-free days or ICU stay have not been shown to decrease with ECCOvR. Carbon dioxide removal was widely demonstrated as feasible, facilitating the use of lower tidal volume ventilation. Complication rates varied greatly across the included studies, representing technological advances. There was a general paucity of high-quality data and significant variation in both practice and technology used among studies, which confounded analysis. ECCO₂R is a rapidly evolving technology and is an efficacious treatment to enable protective lung ventilation. Evidence for a positive effect on mortality and other important clinical outcomes is lacking. Rapid technological advances have led to major changes in these devices and together with variation in study design have limited applicability of analysis. Further well-designed adequately powered RCTs are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Unknown 155 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Other 15 9%
Student > Master 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Other 37 23%
Unknown 32 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 59%
Engineering 5 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 36 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 29 September 2020.
All research outputs
#1,589,179
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,402
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,470
of 241,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#8
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd 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 78% 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 241,490 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 141 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 94% of its contemporaries.