↓ Skip to main content

Cardiorespiratory effects of recruitment maneuvers and positive end expiratory pressure in an experimental context of acute lung injury and pulmonary hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Cardiorespiratory effects of recruitment maneuvers and positive end expiratory pressure in an experimental context of acute lung injury and pulmonary hypertension
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12890-015-0079-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camille Doras, Morgan Le Guen, Ferenc Peták, Walid Habre

Abstract

Recruitment maneuvers (RM) and positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) are the cornerstone of the open lung strategy during ventilation, particularly during acute lung injury (ALI). However, these interventions may impact the pulmonary circulation and induce hemodynamic and respiratory effects, which in turn may be critical in case of pulmonary hypertension (PHT). We aimed to establish how ALI and PHT influence the cardiorespiratory effects of RM and PEEP. Rabbits control or with monocrotaline-induced PHT were used. Forced oscillatory airway and tissue mechanics, effective lung volume (ELV), systemic and right ventricular hemodynamics and blood gas were assessed before and after RM, during baseline and following surfactant depletion by whole lung lavage. RM was more efficient in improving respiratory elastance and ELV in the surfactant-depleted lungs when PHT was concomitantly present. Moreover, the adverse changes in respiratory mechanics and ELV following ALI were lessened in the animals suffering from PHT. During ventilation with open lung strategy, the role of PHT in conferring protection from the adverse respiratory consequences of ALI was evidenced. This finding advocates the safety of RM and PEEP in improving elastance and advancing lung reopening in the simultaneous presence of PHT and ALI.

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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 22%
Other 4 17%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 5 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Engineering 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Design 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 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 01 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,284,384
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#1,576
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,626
of 262,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#27
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 262,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.