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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Automated patient-ventilator interaction analysis during neurally adjusted non-invasive ventilation and pressure support ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-014-0550-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonne Doorduin, Christer A Sinderby, Jennifer Beck, Johannes G van der Hoeven, Leo MA Heunks |
| Abstract |
IntroductionDelivering synchronous assist during non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is challenging with flow or pressure controlled ventilators, especially in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) uses diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi) to control the ventilator. We evaluated patient-ventilator interaction in patients with COPD during NIV with pressure support ventilation (PSV) and NAVA using a recently introduced automated analysis.MethodsTwelve COPD patients underwent three 30-minute trials: 1) PSV with dedicated NIV ventilator (NIV-PSVVision), 2) PSV with intensive care unit (ICU) ventilator (NIV-PSVServo-I), and 3) with NIV-NAVA. EAdi, flow, and airway pressure were recorded. Patient-ventilator interaction was evaluated by comparing airway pressure and EAdi waveforms with automated computer algorithms. The NeuroSync index was calculated as the percentage of timing errors between airway pressure and EAdi.ResultsThe NeuroSync index was higher (larger error) for NIV-PSVVision (24 [IQR 15-30] %) and NIV-PSVServo-I (21 [IQR 15-26] %) compared to NIV-NAVA (5 [IQR 4-7] %; P <0.001). Wasted efforts, trigger delays and cycling-off errors were less with NAVA (P <0.05 for all). The NeuroSync index and the number of wasted efforts were strongly correlated (r2¿=¿0.84), with a drastic increase in wasted efforts after timing errors reach 20%.ConclusionsIn COPD patients, non-invasive NAVA improves patient-ventilator interaction compared to PSV, delivered either by a dedicated or ICU ventilator. The automated analysis of patient-ventilator interaction allowed for an objective detection of patient-ventilator interaction during NIV. In addition, we found that progressive mismatch between neural effort and pneumatic timing is associated with wasted efforts. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 10% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 22% |
| Unknown | 14 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 55% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 1% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 19 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2014.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,211
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,538
of 268,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#104
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 268,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.