↓ Skip to main content

Intrathoracic pressure regulation therapy applied to ventilated patients for treatment of compromised cerebral perfusion from brain injury

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Intrathoracic pressure regulation therapy applied to ventilated patients for treatment of compromised cerebral perfusion from brain injury
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13256-018-1720-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anja K. Metzger, Nicolas Segal, Dai Wai Olson, Stephen A. Figueroa, Farid G. Sadaka, Catherine A. Krause, James R. Homuth, Nathaniel T. Burkhart, Robert T. Neumann, Keith G. Lurie, Victor A. Convertino

Abstract

Reducing intrathoracic pressure in the setting of compromised cerebral perfusion due to acute brain injury has been associated with reduced intracranial pressure and enhanced cerebral perfusion pressure and blood flow in animals. Noninvasive active intrathoracic pressure regulation lowers intrathoracic pressure, increases preload, reduces the volume of venous blood and cerebral spinal fluid in the skull, and enhances cerebral blood flow. We examined the feasibility of active intrathoracic pressure regulation therapy in patients with brain injury. We hypothesized that active intrathoracic pressure regulation therapy would be associated with lowered intracranial pressure and increased cerebral perfusion pressure in these patients. At three institutions, active intrathoracic pressure regulation therapy (CirQlator™, ZOLL) was utilized for 2 consecutive hours in five mechanically ventilated patients with brain injury. A 30-minute interval was used to collect baseline data and determine persistence of effects after device use. End-tidal carbon dioxide was controlled by respiratory rate changes during device use. The intracranial pressure, mean arterial pressure, and cerebral perfusion pressure were recorded at 5-minute intervals throughout all three periods of the protocol. Results for each interval are reported as mean and standard deviation. Intracranial pressure was decreased in all five patients by an average of 21% during (15 ± 4 mmHg) compared to before active intrathoracic pressure regulation (19 ± 4) (p = 0.005). This effect on intracranial pressure (15 ± 6) was still present in four of the five patients 30 minutes after therapy was discontinued (p = 0.89). As a result, cerebral perfusion pressure was 16% higher during (81 ± 10) compared to before active intrathoracic pressure regulation (70 ± 14) (p = 0.04) and this effect remained present 30 minutes after therapy was discontinued. No adverse events were reported. These data support the notion that active intrathoracic pressure regulation, in this limited evaluation, can successfully augment cerebral perfusion by lowering intracranial pressure and increasing mean arterial pressure in patients with mild brain injury. The measured effects were immediate on administration of the therapy and persisted to some degree after the therapy was terminated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Master 6 14%
Other 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 14 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 39%
Engineering 3 7%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Psychology 2 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 09 May 2019.
All research outputs
#6,431,796
of 25,128,618 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#500
of 4,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,237
of 335,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#10
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,128,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,480 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 335,626 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.