↓ Skip to main content

Abdominal functional electrical stimulation to assist ventilator weaning in critical illness: a double-blinded, randomised, sham-controlled pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
41 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 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
Abdominal functional electrical stimulation to assist ventilator weaning in critical illness: a double-blinded, randomised, sham-controlled pilot study
Published in
Critical Care, July 2019
DOI 10.1186/s13054-019-2544-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Euan J. McCaughey, Annemijn H. Jonkman, Claire L. Boswell-Ruys, Rachel A. McBain, Elizabeth A. Bye, Anna L. Hudson, David W. Collins, Leo M. A. Heunks, Angus J. McLachlan, Simon C. Gandevia, Jane E. Butler

Abstract

For every day a person is dependent on mechanical ventilation, respiratory and cardiac complications increase, quality of life decreases and costs increase by > $USD 1500. Interventions that improve respiratory muscle function during mechanical ventilation can reduce ventilation duration. The aim of this pilot study was to assess the feasibility of employing an abdominal functional electrical stimulation (abdominal FES) training program with critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. We also investigated the effect of abdominal FES on respiratory muscle atrophy, mechanical ventilation duration and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. Twenty critically ill mechanically ventilated participants were recruited over a 6-month period from one metropolitan teaching hospital. They were randomly assigned to receive active or sham (control) abdominal FES for 30 min, twice per day, 5 days per week, until ICU discharge. Feasibility was assessed through participant compliance to stimulation sessions. Abdominal and diaphragm muscle thickness were measured using ultrasound 3 times in the first week, and weekly thereafter by a blinded assessor. Respiratory function was recorded when the participant could first breathe independently and at ICU discharge, with ventilation duration and ICU length of stay also recorded at ICU discharge by a blinded assessor. Fourteen of 20 participants survived to ICU discharge (8, intervention; 6, control). One control was transferred before extubation, while one withdrew consent and one was withdrawn for staff safety after extubation. Median compliance to stimulation sessions was 92.1% (IQR 5.77%) in the intervention group, and 97.2% (IQR 7.40%) in the control group (p = 0.384). While this pilot study is not adequately powered to make an accurate statistical conclusion, there appeared to be no between-group thickness changes of the rectus abdominis (p = 0.099 at day 3), diaphragm (p = 0.652 at day 3) or combined lateral abdominal muscles (p = 0.074 at day 3). However, ICU length of stay (p = 0.011) and ventilation duration (p = 0.039) appeared to be shorter in the intervention compared to the control group. Our compliance rates demonstrate the feasibility of using abdominal FES with critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. While abdominal FES did not lead to differences in abdominal muscle or diaphragm thickness, it may be an effective method to reduce ventilation duration and ICU length of stay in this patient group. A fully powered study into this effect is warranted. The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617001180303. Registered 9 August 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 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 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 179 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Student > Master 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 4%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 81 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 15%
Engineering 8 4%
Sports and Recreations 5 3%
Unspecified 4 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 89 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 12 July 2022.
All research outputs
#1,747,325
of 25,840,929 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,517
of 6,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,815
of 360,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#38
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,840,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 360,259 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 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 62% of its contemporaries.