↓ Skip to main content

Management of acute respiratory failure in interstitial lung diseases: overview and clinical insights

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 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
Management of acute respiratory failure in interstitial lung diseases: overview and clinical insights
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12890-018-0643-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paola Faverio, Federica De Giacomi, Luca Sardella, Giuseppe Fiorentino, Mauro Carone, Francesco Salerno, Jousel Ora, Paola Rogliani, Giulia Pellegrino, Giuseppe Francesco Sferrazza Papa, Francesco Bini, Bruno Dino Bodini, Grazia Messinesi, Alberto Pesci, Antonio Esquinas

Abstract

Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are a heterogeneous group of diseases characterized by widespread fibrotic and inflammatory abnormalities of the lung. Respiratory failure is a common complication in advanced stages or following acute worsening of the underlying disease. Aim of this review is to evaluate the current evidence in determining the best management of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in ILDs. A literature search was performed in the Medline/PubMed and EMBASE databases to identify studies that investigated the management of ARF in ILDs (the last search was conducted on November 2017). In managing ARF, it is important to establish an adequate diagnostic and therapeutic management depending on whether the patient has an underlying known chronic ILD or ARF is presenting in an unknown or de novo ILD. In the first case both primary causes, such as acute exacerbations of the disease, and secondary causes, including concomitant pulmonary infections, fluid overload and pulmonary embolism need to be investigated. In the second case, a diagnostic work-up that includes investigations in regards to ILD etiology, such as autoimmune screening and bronchoalveolar lavage, should be performed, and possible concomitant causes of ARF have to be ruled out. Oxygen supplementation and ventilatory support need to be titrated according to the severity of ARF and patients' therapeutic options. High-Flow Nasal oxygen might potentially be an alternative to conventional oxygen therapy in patients requiring both high flows and high oxygen concentrations to correct hypoxemia and control dyspnea, however the evidence is still scarce. Neither Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) nor Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (IMV) seem to change the poor outcomes associated to advanced stages of ILDs. However, in selected patients, such as those with less severe ARF, a NIV trial might help in the early recognition of NIV-responder patients, who may present a better short-term prognosis. More invasive techniques, including IMV and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation, should be limited to patients listed for lung transplant or with reversible causes of ARF. Despite the overall poor prognosis of ARF in ILDs, a personalized approach may positively influence patients' management, possibly leading to improved outcomes. However, further studies are warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 149 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 10%
Other 15 10%
Student > Master 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 42 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 48 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 24 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,933,279
of 18,585,396 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#99
of 1,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,497
of 289,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,585,396 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,468 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 289,966 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them