↓ Skip to main content

The use of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to avoid intubation in patients failing non-invasive ventilation – a cost analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
The use of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal to avoid intubation in patients failing non-invasive ventilation – a cost analysis
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12871-015-0139-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephan Braune, Hilmar Burchardi, Markus Engel, Axel Nierhaus, Henning Ebelt, Maria Metschke, Simone Rosseau, Stefan Kluge

Abstract

To evaluate the economic implications of the pre-emptive use of extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) to avoid invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in patients with hypercapnic ventilatory insufficiency failing non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Retrospective ancillary cost analysis of data extracted from a recently published multicentre case-control-study (n = 42) on the use of arterio-venous ECCO2R to avoid IMV in patients with acute on chronic ventilatory failure. Cost calculations were based on average daily treatment costs for intensive care unit (ICU) and normal medical wards as well as on the specific costs of the ECCO2R system. In the group treated with ECCO2R IMV was avoided in 90 % of cases and mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was shorter than in the matched control group treated with IMV (23.0 vs. 42.0 days). The overall average hospital treatment costs did not differ between the two groups (41.134 vs. 39.366 €, p = 0.8). A subgroup analysis of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) revealed significantly lower median ICU length of stay (11.0 vs. 35.0 days), hospital length of stay (17.5 vs. 51.5 days) and treatment costs for the ECCO2R group (19.610 vs. 46.552 €, p = 0.01). Additional costs for the use of arterio-venous ECCO2R to avoid IMV in patients with acute-on-chronic ventilatory insufficiency failing NIV may be offset by a cost reducing effect of a shorter length of ICU and hospital stay.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 62 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Master 7 11%
Other 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 58%
Engineering 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 15 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,468,612
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#303
of 1,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,748
of 285,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#9
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 285,322 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.