↓ Skip to main content

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure in children: a concise review

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
Title
Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure in children: a concise review
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, May 2011
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-1-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abolfazl Najaf-Zadeh, Francis Leclerc

Abstract

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) refers to the delivery of mechanical respiratory support without the use of endotracheal intubation (ETI). The present review focused on the effectiveness of NPPV in children > 1 month of age with acute respiratory failure (ARF) due to different conditions. ARF is the most common cause of cardiac arrest in children. Therefore, prompt recognition and treatment of pediatric patients with pending respiratory failure can be lifesaving. Mechanical respiratory support is a critical intervention in many cases of ARF. In recent years, NPPV has been proposed as a valuable alternative to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in this acute setting. Recent physiological studies have demonstrated beneficial effects of NPPV in children with ARF. Several pediatric clinical studies, the majority of which were noncontrolled or case series and of small size, have suggested the effectiveness of NPPV in the treatment of ARF due to acute airway (upper or lower) obstruction or certain primary parenchymal lung disease, and in specific circumstances, such as postoperative or postextubation ARF, immunocompromised patients with ARF, or as a means to facilitate extubation. NPPV was well tolerated with rare major complications and was associated with improved gas exchange, decreased work of breathing, and ETI avoidance in 22-100% of patients. High FiO2 needs or high PaCO2 level on admission or within the first hours after starting NPPV appeared to be the best independent predictive factors for the NPPV failure in children with ARF. However, many important issues, such as the identification of the patient, the right time for NPPV application, and the appropriate setting, are still lacking. Further randomized, controlled trials that address these issues in children with ARF are recommended.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 2%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Bulgaria 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 108 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 21 18%
Researcher 13 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Master 9 8%
Other 32 28%
Unknown 19 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 22 19%
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 27 March 2014.
All research outputs
#20,226,756
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#948
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,316
of 112,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#13
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 112,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.