↓ Skip to main content

Dexmedetomidine is effective and safe during NIV in infants and young children with acute respiratory failure

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog


26 Dimensions

Readers on

71 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.
Dexmedetomidine is effective and safe during NIV in infants and young children with acute respiratory failure
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12887-018-1256-y
Pubmed ID

M. Piastra, A. Pizza, S. Gaddi, E. Luca, O. Genovese, E. Picconi, D. De Luca, G. Conti


Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly utilized in infants and young children, though associated with high failure rates due to agitation and poor compliance, mostly if patient-ventilator synchronization is required. A retrospective cohort study was carried out in an academic pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Dexmedetomidine (DEX) was infused as unique sedative in 40 consecutive pediatric patients (median age 16 months) previously showing intolerance and agitation during NIV application. During NIV clinical application both COMFORT-B Score and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) were serially evaluated. Four patients experiencing NIV failure, all due to pulmonary condition worsening, required intubation and invasive ventilation. 36 patients were successfully weaned from NIV under DEX sedation and discharged from PICU. All patients survived until home discharge. Our data suggest that DEX may represent an effective sedative agent in infants and children showing agitation during NIV. Early use of DEX in infants/children receiving NIV for acute respiratory failure (ARF) should be considered safe and capable of improving NIV, thus permitting both lung recruitment and patient-ventilator synchronization.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Other 9 13%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 20 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 17%
Unspecified 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 22 31%
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 26 August 2018.
All research outputs
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
of 3,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 335,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 3,111 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 335,428 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.