↓ Skip to main content

Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients: the Efraim multinational prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, September 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
36 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
188 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 Mendeley
Title
Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients: the Efraim multinational prospective cohort study
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00134-017-4947-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elie Azoulay, Peter Pickkers, Marcio Soares, Anders Perner, Jordi Rello, Philippe R. Bauer, Andry van de Louw, Pleun Hemelaar, Virginie Lemiale, Fabio Silvio Taccone, Ignacio Martin Loeches, Tine Sylvest Meyhoff, Jorge Salluh, Peter Schellongowski, Katerina Rusinova, Nicolas Terzi, Sangeeta Mehta, Massimo Antonelli, Achille Kouatchet, Andreas Barratt-Due, Miia Valkonen, Precious Pearl Landburg, Fabrice Bruneel, Ramin Brandt Bukan, Frédéric Pène, Victoria Metaxa, Anne Sophie Moreau, Virginie Souppart, Gaston Burghi, Christophe Girault, Ulysses V. A. Silva, Luca Montini, François Barbier, Lene B. Nielsen, Benjamin Gaborit, Djamel Mokart, Sylvie Chevret, for the Efraim investigators and the Nine-I study group

Abstract

In immunocompromised patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF), initial management aims primarily to avoid invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). To assess the impact of initial management on IMV and mortality rates, we performed a multinational observational prospective cohort study in 16 countries (68 centers). A total of 1611 patients were enrolled (hematological malignancies 51.9%, solid tumors 35.2%, systemic diseases 17.3%, and solid organ transplantation 8.8%). The main ARF etiologies were bacterial (29.5%), viral (15.4%), and fungal infections (14.7%), or undetermined (13.2%). On admission, 915 (56.8%) patients were not intubated. They received standard oxygen (N = 496, 53.9%), high-flow oxygen (HFNC, N = 187, 20.3%), noninvasive ventilation (NIV, N = 153, 17.2%), and NIV + HFNC (N = 79, 8.6%). Factors associated with IMV included age (hazard ratio = 0.92/year, 95% CI 0.86-0.99), day-1 SOFA (1.09/point, 1.06-1.13), day-1 PaO2/FiO2 (1.47, 1.05-2.07), ARF etiology (Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (2.11, 1.42-3.14), invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (1.85, 1.21-2.85), and undetermined cause (1.46, 1.09-1.98). After propensity score matching, HFNC, but not NIV, had an effect on IMV rate (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.59-1.00, p = 0.05). ICU, hospital, and day-90 mortality rates were 32.4, 44.1, and 56.4%, respectively. Factors independently associated with hospital mortality included age (odds ratio = 1.18/year, 1.09-1.27), direct admission to the ICU (0.69, 0.54-0.87), day-1 SOFA excluding respiratory score (1.12/point, 1.08-1.16), PaO2/FiO2 < 100 (1.60, 1.03-2.48), and undetermined ARF etiology (1.43, 1.04-1.97). Initial oxygenation strategy did not affect mortality; however, IMV was associated with mortality, the odds ratio depending on IMV conditions: NIV + HFNC failure (2.31, 1.09-4.91), first-line IMV (2.55, 1.94-3.29), NIV failure (3.65, 2.05-6.53), standard oxygen failure (4.16, 2.91-5.93), and HFNC failure (5.54, 3.27-9.38). HFNC has an effect on intubation but not on mortality rates. Failure to identify ARF etiology is associated with higher rates of both intubation and mortality. This suggests that in addition to selecting the appropriate oxygenation device, clinicians should strive to identify the etiology of ARF.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 177 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 26 15%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 6%
Student > Postgraduate 11 6%
Other 37 21%
Unknown 57 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Environmental Science 2 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 70 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 23 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,775,559
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,480
of 5,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,935
of 331,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#30
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 331,670 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 63% of its contemporaries.