↓ Skip to main content

Post-extubation stridor in intensive care unit patients

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, November 2002
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
182 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
Post-extubation stridor in intensive care unit patients
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, November 2002
DOI 10.1007/s00134-002-1563-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samir Jaber, Gérald Chanques, Stefan Matecki, Michèle Ramonatxo, Christine Vergne, Bruno Souche, Pierre-François Perrigault, Jean-Jacques Eledjam

Abstract

To evaluate the incidence and identify factors associated with the occurrence of post-extubation stridor and to evaluate the performance of the cuff-leak test in detecting this complication. Prospective, clinical investigation. Intensive care unit of a university hospital. Hundred twelve extubations were analyzed in 112 patients during a 14-month period. A cuff-leak test before each extubation. The incidence of stridor was 12%. When we chose the thresholds of 130 ml and 12% to quantify the cuff-leak volume, the sensitivity and the specificity of the test were, respectively, 85% and 95%. The patients who developed stridor had a cuff leak significantly lower than the others, expressed in absolute values (372+/-170 vs 59+/-92 ml, p<0.001) or in relative values (56+/-20 vs 9+/-13%, p<0.001). Stridor was associated with an elevated Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II), a medical reason for admission, a traumatic or difficult intubation, a history of self-extubation, an over-inflated balloon cuff at admission to ICU and a prolonged period of intubation. These results provide a framework with which to identify patients at risk of developing a stridor after extubation. A low cuff-leak volume (<130 ml or 12%) around the endotracheal tube prior to extubation is useful in identifying patients at risk for post-extubation stridor.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 105 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 21 19%
Student > Postgraduate 12 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 9%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 26 24%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Unspecified 2 2%
Mathematics 1 <1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 29 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 31 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,276,163
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#3,957
of 5,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,665
of 135,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 135,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.