↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence and predictors of out-of-range cuff pressure of endotracheal and tracheostomy tubes: a prospective cohort study in mechanically ventilated patients

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Prevalence and predictors of out-of-range cuff pressure of endotracheal and tracheostomy tubes: a prospective cohort study in mechanically ventilated patients
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12871-015-0132-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amer R. Alzahrani, Shatha Al Abbasi, Othman Khalid Abahoussin, Tariq Othman Al Shehri, Hasan M. Al-Dorzi, Hani M. Tamim, Musharaf Sadat, Yaseen M. Arabi

Abstract

Maintaining the cuff pressure of endotracheal tubes (ETTs) within 20-30 cmH2O is a standard practice. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of standard practice in maintaining cuff pressure within the target range. This was a prospective observational study conducted in a tertiary-care intensive care unit, in which respiratory therapists (RTs) measured the cuff pressure 6 hourly by a handheld manometer. In this study, a research RT checked cuff pressure 2-4 h after the clinical RT measurement. Percentages of patients with cuff pressure levels above and below the target range were calculated. We identified predictors of low-cuff pressure. We analyzed 2120 cuff-pressure measurements. The mean cuff pressure was 27 ± 2 cmH2O by the clinical RT and 21 ± 5 cmH2O by the research RT (p < 0.0001). The clinical RT documented that 98.0 % of cuff pressures were within the normal range. The research RT found the cuff pressures to be within the normal range in only 41.5 %, below the range in 53 % and above the range in 5.5 %. Low cuff pressure was found more common with lower ETT size (OR, 0.34 per 0.5 unit increase in ETT size; 95 % CI, 0.15-0.79) and with lower peak airway pressure (OR per one cm H2O increment, 0.93; 95 % CI, 0.87-0.99) on multivariate analysis. Cuff pressure is frequently not maintained within the target range with low-cuff pressure being very common approximately 3 h after routine measurements. Low cuff pressure was associated with lower ETT size and lower peak airway pressure. There is a need to redesign the process for maintaining cuff pressure within the target range.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 3%
Unknown 37 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 12 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Computer Science 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 16 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,239,950
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#516
of 1,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,595
of 279,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#10
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,496 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 279,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.