↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of heat and moisture exchangers in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Effectiveness of heat and moisture exchangers in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2253-14-115
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mayra Gonçalves Menegueti, Maria Auxiliadora-Martins, Altacílio Aparecido Nunes

Abstract

Patients may acquire ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) by aspirating the condensate that originates in the ventilator circuit upon use of a conventional humidifier. The bacteria that colonize the patients themselves can proliferate in the condensate and then return to the airways and lungs when the patient aspirates this contaminated material. Therefore, the use of HME might contribute to preventing pneumonia and lowering the VAP incidence. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the use of HME impacts the probability of VAP occurrence in critically ill patients. On the basis of the acronym "PICO" (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome), the question that guided this review was "Do critically ill patients under invasive mechanical ventilation present lower VAP incidence when they use HME as compared with HH?". Two of the authors of this review searched the databases PUBMED/Medline, The Cochrane Library, and Latin-American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences, LILACS independently; they used the following keywords: "heat and moisture exchanger", AND "heated humidifier", AND "ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention". This review included papers in the English language published from January 1990 to December 2012. This review included ten studies. Comparison between the use of HME and HH did not reveal any differences in terms of VAP occurrence (OR = 0.998; 95% CI: 0.778-1.281). Together, the ten studies corresponded to a total sample of 1077 and 953 patients in the HME and HH groups, respectively; heterogeneity among the investigations was low (I(2) < 50%). Information about the outcome mortality was available in only eight of the ten studies. The use of HME and HH did not afford different results in terms of mortality (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 0.864-1.376). The total sample size was 884 and 762 patients, respectively. Heterogeneity among the studies was low (I(2) = 0.0%). Current meta-analysis was not sufficient to definitely exclude an associate between heat and moisture exchangers and VAP. Despite the methodological limitations found in selected clinical trials, the current meta-analysis suggests that HME does not decrease VAP incidence or mortality in critically ill patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Unknown 57 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Other 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Unspecified 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 17 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 June 2022.
All research outputs
#14,274,663
of 24,960,237 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#422
of 1,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,052
of 366,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#12
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,960,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 366,669 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.