↓ Skip to main content

Easily identified at-risk patients for extubation failure may benefit from noninvasive ventilation: a prospective before-after study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
143 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Easily identified at-risk patients for extubation failure may benefit from noninvasive ventilation: a prospective before-after study
Published in
Critical Care, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1228-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arnaud W. Thille, Florence Boissier, Hassen Ben-Ghezala, Keyvan Razazi, Armand Mekontso-Dessap, Christian Brun-Buisson, Laurent Brochard

Abstract

While studies have suggested that prophylactic noninvasive ventilation (NIV) could prevent post-extubation respiratory failure in the intensive care unit, they appear inconsistent with regard to reintubation. We assessed the impact of a prophylactic NIV protocol on reintubation in a large population of at-risk patients. Prospective before-after study performed in the medical ICU of a teaching referral hospital. In the control cohort, we determined that patients older than 65 years and those with underlying cardiac or respiratory disease were at high-risk for reintubation. In the interventional cohort, we implemented a protocol using prophylactic NIV in all patients intubated at least 24 h and having one of these risk factors. NIV was immediately applied after planned extubation during at least the first 24 hours. Extubation failure was defined by the need for reintubation within seven days following extubation. We included 83 patients at high-risk among 132 extubated patients in the control cohort (12-month period) and 150 patients at high-risk among 225 extubated patients in the NIV cohort (18-month period). The reintubation rate was significantly decreased from 28 % in the control cohort (23/83) to 15 % (23/150) in the NIV cohort (p = 0.02 log-rank test), whereas the non-at-risk patients did not significantly differ in the two periods (10.2 % vs. 10.7 %, p = 0.93). After multivariate logistic-regression analysis, the use of prophylactic NIV protocol was independently associated with extubation success. The implementation of prophylactic NIV after extubation may reduce the reintubation rate in a large population of patients with easily identified risk factors for extubation failure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 143 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 113 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 17%
Other 16 14%
Student > Postgraduate 13 11%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 23 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 15%
Arts and Humanities 1 <1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 <1%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 28 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 90. 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 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#471,849
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#280
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,352
of 312,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#3
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 312,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.