↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility of titrating PEEP to minimum elastance for mechanically ventilated patients

Overview of attention for article published in Pilot and Feasibility Studies, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Feasibility of titrating PEEP to minimum elastance for mechanically ventilated patients
Published in
Pilot and Feasibility Studies, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40814-015-0006-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yeong Shiong Chiew, Christopher G Pretty, Geoffrey M Shaw, Yeong Woei Chiew, Bernard Lambermont, Thomas Desaive, J Geoffrey Chase

Abstract

Selecting positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during mechanical ventilation is important, as it can influence disease progression and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. However, there are no well-established methods for optimizing PEEP selection due to the heterogeneity of ARDS. This research investigates the viability of titrating PEEP to minimum elastance for mechanically ventilated ARDS patients. Ten mechanically ventilated ARDS patients from the Christchurch Hospital Intensive Care Unit were included in this study. Each patient underwent a stepwise PEEP recruitment manoeuvre. Airway pressure and flow data were recorded using a pneumotachometer. Patient-specific respiratory elastance (Ers ) and dynamic functional residual capacity (dFRC) at each PEEP level were calculated and compared. Optimal PEEP for each patient was identified by finding the minima of the PEEP-Ers profile. Median Ers and dFRC over all patients and PEEP values were 32.2 cmH2O/l [interquartile range (IQR) 25.0-45.9] and 0.42 l [IQR 0.11-0.87]. These wide ranges reflect patient heterogeneity and variable response to PEEP. The level of PEEP associated with minimum Ers corresponds to a high change of functional residual capacity, representing the balance between recruitment and minimizing the risk of overdistension. Monitoring patient-specific Ers can provide clinical insight to patient-specific condition and response to PEEP settings. The level of PEEP associated with minimum-Ers can be identified for each patient using a stepwise PEEP recruitment manoeuvre. This 'minimum elastance PEEP' may represent a patient-specific optimal setting during mechanical ventilation. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12611001179921.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 19%
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Other 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 42%
Engineering 7 27%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Unknown 6 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,751,741
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#792
of 1,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,737
of 262,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pilot and Feasibility Studies
#7
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,030 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. 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 262,851 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.