↓ Skip to main content

Severe hypoxemia: which strategy to choose

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 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 (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
39 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
288 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Severe hypoxemia: which strategy to choose
Published in
Critical Care, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1304-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Davide Chiumello, Matteo Brioni

Abstract

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterized by a noncardiogenic pulmonary edema with bilateral chest X-ray opacities and reduction in lung compliance, and the hallmark of the syndrome is hypoxemia refractory to oxygen therapy. Severe hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 < 100 mmHg), which defines severe ARDS, can be found in 20-30 % of the patients and is associated with the highest mortality rate. Although the standard supportive treatment remains mechanical ventilation (noninvasive and invasive), possible adjuvant therapies can be considered. We performed an up-to-date clinical review of the possible available strategies for ARDS patients with severe hypoxemia. In summary, in moderate-to-severe ARDS or in the presence of other organ failure, noninvasive ventilatory support presents a high risk of failure: in those cases the risk/benefit of delayed mechanical ventilation should be evaluated carefully. Tailoring mechanical ventilation to the individual patient is fundamental to reduce the risk of ventilation-induced lung injury (VILI): it is mandatory to apply a low tidal volume, while the optimal level of positive end-expiratory pressure should be selected after a stratification of the severity of the disease, also taking into account lung recruitability; monitoring transpulmonary pressure or airway driving pressure can help to avoid lung overstress. Targeting oxygenation of 88-92 % and tolerating a moderate level of hypercapnia are a safe choice. Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are useful to maintain patient-ventilation synchrony in the first hours; prone positioning improves oxygenation in most cases and promotes a more homogeneous distribution of ventilation, reducing the risk of VILI; both treatments, also in combination, are associated with an improvement in outcome if applied in the acute phase in the most severe cases. The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in severe ARDS is increasing worldwide, but because of a lack of randomized trials is still considered a rescue therapy. Severe ARDS patients should receive a holistic framework of respiratory and hemodynamic support aimed to ensure adequate gas exchange while minimizing the risk of VILI, by promoting lung recruitment and setting protective mechanical ventilation. In the most severe cases, NMBAs, prone positioning, and ECMO should be considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 278 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 47 16%
Researcher 40 14%
Student > Postgraduate 38 13%
Student > Master 24 8%
Student > Bachelor 23 8%
Other 66 23%
Unknown 50 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 189 66%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 1%
Engineering 4 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 61 21%
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 11 February 2019.
All research outputs
#1,488,822
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,313
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,759
of 354,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#49
of 114 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 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 well, scoring higher than 79% 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 354,231 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 114 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 57% of its contemporaries.