↓ Skip to main content

Effect of regulating airway pressure on intrathoracic pressure and vital organ perfusion pressure during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a non-randomized interventional cross-over study

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Effect of regulating airway pressure on intrathoracic pressure and vital organ perfusion pressure during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a non-randomized interventional cross-over study
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13049-015-0164-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Younghoon Kwon, Guillaume Debaty, Laura Puertas, Anja Metzger, Jennifer Rees, Scott McKnite, Demetris Yannopoulos, Keith Lurie

Abstract

The objective of this investigation was to evaluate changes in intrathoracic pressure (Ppl), airway pressure (Paw) and vital organ perfusion pressures during standard and intrathoracic pressure regulation (IPR)-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Multiple CPR interventions were assessed, including newer ones based upon IPR, a therapy that enhances negative intrathoracic pressure after each positive pressure breath. Eight anesthetized pigs underwent 4 min of untreated ventricular fibrillation followed by 2 min each of sequential interventions: (1) conventional standard CPR (STD), (2) automated active compression decompression (ACD) CPR, (3) ACD+ an impedance threshold device (ITD) CPR or (4) ACD+ an intrathoracic pressure regulator (ITPR) CPR, the latter two representing IPR-based CPR therapies. Intrapleural (Ppl), airway (Paw), right atrial, intracranial, and aortic pressures, along with carotid blood flow and end tidal CO2, were measured and compared during each CPR intervention. The lowest mean and decompression phase Ppl were observed with IPR-based therapies [Ppl mean (mean ± SE): STD (0.8 ± 1.1 mmHg); ACD (-1.6 ± 1.6); ACD-ITD (-3.7 ± 1.5, p < 0.05 vs. both STD and ACD); ACD-ITPR (-7.0 ± 1.9, p < 0.05 vs. both STD and ACD)] [Ppl decompression (mean ± SE): STD (-6.3 ± 2.2); ACD (-13.0 ± 3.8); ACD-ITD -16.9 ± 3.6, p < 0.05 vs. both STD and ACD); ACD-ITPR -18.7 ± 3.5, p < 0.05 vs. both STD and ACD)]. Interventions with the lower mean or decompression phase Ppl also demonstrated lower Paw and were associated with higher vital organ perfusion pressures. IPR-based CPR methods, specifically ACD-ITPR, yielded the most pronounced reduction in both Ppl and Paw and resulted in the most favorable augmentation of hemodynamics during CPR.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 25%

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 28 October 2015.
All research outputs
#3,077,374
of 6,500,718 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#354
of 502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,941
of 207,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#24
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,500,718 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 502 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 207,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.