| Title |
Patient–ventilator interaction in ARDS patients with extremely low compliance undergoing ECMO: a novel approach based on diaphragm electrical activity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-012-2755-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tommaso Mauri, Giacomo Bellani, Giacomo Grasselli, Andrea Confalonieri, Roberto Rona, Nicolo’ Patroniti, Antonio Pesenti |
| Abstract |
Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) usually present very low respiratory system compliance (Cst(rs)) values (i.e., severe restrictive respiratory syndrome patients). As a consequence, they are at high risk of experiencing poor patient-ventilator interaction during assisted breathing. We hypothesized that monitoring of diaphragm electrical activity (EAdi) may enhance asynchrony assessment and that neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) may reduce asynchrony, especially in more severely restricted patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 121 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 32 | 25% |
| Unknown | 22 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 77 | 61% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 27 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 October 2018.
All research outputs
#6,405,709
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#2,623
of 4,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,830
of 276,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#11
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 276,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 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 72% of its contemporaries.