↓ Skip to main content

Intra-operative adherence to lung-protective ventilation: a prospective observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Perioperative Medicine, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 243)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Intra-operative adherence to lung-protective ventilation: a prospective observational study
Published in
Perioperative Medicine, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13741-016-0033-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaimin M. Patel, Roisin Baker, Joyce Yeung, Charlotte Small, On behalf of West Midlands-Trainee Research and Audit Network (WM-TRAIN)

Abstract

Lung-protective ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome improves mortality. Adopting this strategy in the perioperative period has been shown to reduce lung inflammation and postoperative pulmonary and non-pulmonary sepsis complications in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. We conducted a prospective observational study into the intra-operative ventilation practice across the West Midlands to assess the use of lung-protective ventilation. Data was collected from all adult ventilated patients undergoing surgery across 14 hospital trusts in the West Midlands over a 2-day period in November 2013. Data collected included surgical specialty, patient's biometric data, duration of procedure, grade of anesthetist, and ventilatory parameters. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the delivery of a tidal volume between 6 and 8 ml/kg/predicted body weight, a peak pressure of less than 30 cmH2O, and the use of positive end expiratory pressure of 6-8 cmH2O. Categorical data are presented descriptively, while non-parametric data are displayed as medians with statistical tests from Mann-Whitney U tests or Kruskal-Wallis tests for independent samples while paired samples are represented by Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Four hundred six patients with a median age of 56 years (16-91) were included. The majority of operations (78 %) were elective procedures with the principal anesthetist being a consultant. The commonest surgical specialties were general (29 %), trauma and orthopedic (19 %), and ENT (17 %). Volume-controlled ventilation was the preferred ventilation strategy in 70 % of cases. No patients were ventilated using lung-protective ventilation. Overall peak airway pressure (pPeak) was low (median 20 cmH2O (inter-quartile range [IQR] 10-43 cmH2O)) with median delivered tidal volumes of 8.4 ml/kg/predicted body weight (PBW) (IQR 3.5-14.5 ml/kg/PBW). The median positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) was only 4 cmH2O (0-5 cmH2O) with PEEP not used in 152 cases. Perioperative lung protection ventilation can improve patient outcomes from major surgery. This large prospective study demonstrates that within the West Midlands lung-protective ventilation during the perioperative period is uncommon, especially in relation to the use of PEEP, and that perhaps further trials are required to promote wider adoption of practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 18%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 8 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 13 June 2016.
All research outputs
#2,462,947
of 23,170,347 outputs
Outputs from Perioperative Medicine
#31
of 243 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,363
of 299,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perioperative Medicine
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,170,347 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 243 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 299,769 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.