↓ Skip to main content

In vivo calibration of esophageal pressure in the mechanically ventilated patient makes measurements reliable

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2016
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
patent
7 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 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
In vivo calibration of esophageal pressure in the mechanically ventilated patient makes measurements reliable
Published in
Critical Care, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1278-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Mojoli, Giorgio Antonio Iotti, Francesca Torriglia, Marco Pozzi, Carlo Alberto Volta, Stefania Bianzina, Antonio Braschi, Laurent Brochard

Abstract

Esophageal pressure (Pes) can provide information to guide mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory failure. However, both relative changes and absolute values of Pes can be affected by inappropriate filling of the esophageal balloon and by the elastance of the esophagus wall. We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a calibration procedure consisting in optimization of balloon filling and subtraction of the pressure generated by the esophagus wall (Pew). An esophageal balloon was progressively filled in 36 patients under controlled mechanical ventilation. VBEST was the filling volume associated with the largest tidal increase of Pes. Esophageal wall elastance was quantified and Pew was computed at each filling volume. Different filling strategies were compared by performing a validation occlusion test. Fifty series of measurements were performed. VBEST was 3.5 ± 1.9 ml (range 0.5-6.0). Esophagus elastance was 1.1 ± 0.5 cmH2O/ml (0.3-3.1). Both Pew and the result of the occlusion test differed among filling strategies. At filling volumes of 0.5, VBEST and 4.0 ml respectively, Pew was 0.0 ± 0.1, 2.0 ± 1.9, and 3.0 ± 1.7 cmH2O (p < 0.0001), whereas the occlusion test was satisfactory in 22 %, 98 %, and 88 % of cases (p < 0.0001). Under mechanical ventilation, an increase of balloon filling above the conventionally recommended low volumes warrants complete transmission of Pes swings, but is associated with significant elevation of baseline. A simple calibration procedure allows finding the filling volume associated with the best transmission of tidal Pes change and subtracting the associated baseline artifact, thus making measurement of absolute values of Pes reliable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 141 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 20 14%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Master 12 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 38 26%
Unknown 35 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Engineering 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 40 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 04 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,504,592
of 25,838,141 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,302
of 6,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,757
of 317,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#41
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,838,141 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,631 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 80% 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 317,370 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 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 58% of its contemporaries.