↓ Skip to main content

Temporal trends and current practice patterns for intraoperative ventilation at U.S. academic medical centers: a retrospective study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Temporal trends and current practice patterns for intraoperative ventilation at U.S. academic medical centers: a retrospective study
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12871-015-0010-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan P Wanderer, Jesse M Ehrenfeld, Richard H Epstein, Daryl J Kor, Raquel R Bartz, Ana Fernandez-Bustamante, Marcos F Vidal Melo, James M Blum

Abstract

Lung protective ventilation strategies utilizing lower tidal volumes per predicted body weight (PBW) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) have been suggested to be beneficial in a variety of surgical populations. Recent clinical studies have used control groups ventilated with high tidal volumes without PEEP based on the assumption that this reflects current clinical practice. We hypothesized that ventilation strategies have changed over time, that most anesthetics in U.S. academic medical centers are currently performed with lower tidal volumes, and that most receive PEEP. Intraoperative data were pooled for adults undergoing general anesthesia with tracheal intubation. Median tidal volumes per kilogram of PBW were categorized as > 10, 8-10 and < 8 mL per kg of PBW. The percentages of cases in 2013 that were performed with median tidal volumes < 8 mL per kg of PBW and PEEP were determined. As a secondary analysis, a proportional odds model using institution, year, height, weight and gender determined the relative associations of these factors using categorical and interquartile odds ratios. 295,540 cases were analyzed from 5 institutions over a period of 10 years. In 2013, 59.3% of cases used median tidal volumes < 8 mL per kg of PBW, 83.3% used PEEP, and 51.0% used both. Of those cases with PEEP, 60.9% used a median pressure of ≥ 5 cmH2O. Predictors of lower categories of tidal volumes included height (odds ratio (OR) 10.83, 95% confidence interval [10.50, 11.16]), institution (lowest OR 0.98 [0.96, 1.00], highest OR 9.63 [9.41, 9.86]), year (lowest OR 1.32 [1.21, 1.44], highest OR 6.31 [5.84, 6.82]), male gender (OR 1.10 [1.07, 1.12]), and weight (OR 0.30 [0.29, 0.31]). Most general anesthetics with tracheal intubation at the institutions surveyed are currently performed with a median tidal volume < 8 mL per kg of PBW, most are managed with PEEP of ≥ 5 cmH2O and approximately half utilize both. Given the diversity of the institutions included, this is likely reflective of practice in U.S. academic medical centers. The utilization of higher tidal volumes without PEEP in control groups for clinical research studies should be reconsidered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 22%
Student > Master 5 19%
Professor 3 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 56%
Unspecified 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 22%
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 19 December 2015.
All research outputs
#18,403,994
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#990
of 1,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,030
of 263,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#26
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,497 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 263,904 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.