↓ Skip to main content

Aerosol delivery during invasive mechanical ventilation: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
132 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
Aerosol delivery during invasive mechanical ventilation: a systematic review
Published in
Critical Care, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1844-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Dugernier, Stephan Ehrmann, Thierry Sottiaux, Jean Roeseler, Xavier Wittebole, Thierry Dugernier, François Jamar, Pierre-François Laterre, Gregory Reychler

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to assess inhaled drug delivery in mechanically ventilated patients or in animal models. Whole lung and regional deposition and the impact of the ventilator circuit, the artificial airways and the administration technique for aerosol delivery were analyzed. In vivo studies assessing lung deposition during invasive mechanical ventilation were selected based on a systematic search among four databases. Two investigators independently assessed the eligibility and the risk of bias. Twenty-six clinical and ten experimental studies were included. Between 30% and 43% of nominal drug dose was lost to the circuit in ventilated patients. Whole lung deposition of up to 16% and 38% of nominal dose (proportion of drug charged in the device) were reported with nebulizers and metered-dose inhalers, respectively. A penetration index inferior to 1 observed in scintigraphic studies indicated major proximal deposition. However, substantial concentrations of antibiotics were measured in the epithelial lining fluid (887 (406-12,819) μg/mL of amikacin) of infected patients and in sub-pleural specimens (e.g., 197 μg/g of amikacin) dissected from infected piglets, suggesting a significant distal deposition. The administration technique varied among studies and may explain a degree of the variability of deposition that was observed. Lung deposition was lower than 20% of nominal dose delivered with nebulizers and mostly occurred in proximal airways. Further studies are needed to link substantial concentrations of antibiotics in infected pulmonary fluids to pulmonary deposition. The administration technique with nebulizers should be improved in ventilated patients in order to ensure an efficient but safe, feasible and reproducible technique.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 132 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 22 19%
Student > Master 12 11%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Professor 5 4%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 31 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 35 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 82. 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 12 May 2020.
All research outputs
#519,193
of 25,468,708 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#332
of 6,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,078
of 337,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#10
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,468,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,567 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 94% 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 337,686 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.