↓ Skip to main content

How to avoid microaspiration? A key element for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intubated ICU patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2014
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
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
How to avoid microaspiration? A key element for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia in intubated ICU patients
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-14-119
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stijn I Blot, Jan Poelaert, Marin Kollef

Abstract

Microaspiration of subglottic secretions through channels formed by folds in high volume-low pressure poly-vinyl chloride cuffs of endotracheal tubes is considered a significant pathogenic mechanism of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Therefore a series of prevention measures target the avoidance of microaspiration. However, although some of these can minimize microaspiration, benefits in terms of VAP prevention are not always obvious. Polyurethane-cuffed endotracheal tubes successfully reduce microaspiration but high quality data demonstrating VAP rate reduction are lacking. An analogous conclusion can be made regarding taper-shaped cuffs compared with classic barrel-shaped cuffs. More clinical data regarding these endotracheal tube designs are needed to demonstrate clinical value in addition to in vitro-based evidence. The clinical usefulness of endotracheal tubes developed for subglottic secretions drainage is established in multiple studies and confirmed by meta-analysis. Any change in cuff design will fail to prevent microaspiration if the cuff is insufficiently inflated. At least one well-designed trial demonstrated that continuous cuff pressure monitoring and control decrease the risk of VAP. Gel lubrication of the cuff prior to intubation temporarily hampers microaspiration through sludging the channels formed by folds in high volume-low pressure cuffs. As the beneficial effect of gel lubrication is temporarily, its potential to reduce VAP risk is probably nonsignificant. A minimum positive end-expiratory pressure of at least 5 cmH2O can be recommended as it reduces the risk of microaspiration in vitro and in vivo. One randomized controlled study demonstrated a reduced risk of VAP in patients ventilated with PEEP (5-8 cmH2O). Regarding head-of-bed elevation, it can be recommended to avoid supine positioning. Whether a 45° head-of-bed elevation is to be preferred above 25-30° head-of-bed elevation remains unproven. Finally, the routine monitoring of gastric residual volumes in mechanically ventilated patients receiving enteral nutrition cannot be recommended.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 147 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Student > Postgraduate 15 10%
Student > Master 15 10%
Other 11 7%
Other 43 28%
Unknown 33 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Unspecified 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 36 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,578,499
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#782
of 7,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,050
of 362,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#19
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 362,999 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 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.