↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2004
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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
Clinical review: Biphasic positive airway pressure and airway pressure release ventilation
Published in
Critical Care, August 2004
DOI 10.1186/cc2919
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Putensen, Hermann Wrigge

Abstract

This review focuses on mechanical ventilation strategies that allow unsupported spontaneous breathing activity in any phase of the ventilatory cycle. By allowing patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome to breathe spontaneously, one can expect improvements in gas exchange and systemic blood flow, based on findings from both experimental and clinical trials. In addition, by increasing end-expiratory lung volume, as occurs when using biphasic positive airway pressure or airway pressure release ventilation, recruitment of collapsed or consolidated lung is likely to occur, especially in juxtadiaphragmatic lung legions. Traditional approaches to mechanical ventilatory support of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome require adaptation of the patient to the mechanical ventilator using heavy sedation and even muscle relaxation. Recent investigations have questioned the utility of sedation, muscle paralysis and mechanical control of ventilation. Furthermore, evidence exists that lowering sedation levels will decrease the duration of mechanical ventilatory support, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and overall costs of hospitalization. Based on currently available data, we suggest considering the use of techniques of mechanical ventilatory support that maintain, rather than suppress, spontaneous ventilatory effort, especially in patients with severe pulmonary dysfunction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 135 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 23 17%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Postgraduate 19 14%
Student > Master 14 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 7%
Other 35 25%
Unknown 18 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 70%
Engineering 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 21 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 July 2012.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,469
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,626
of 60,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 60,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.