↓ Skip to main content

Application of intraoperative lung-protective ventilation varies in accordance with the knowledge of anaesthesiologists: a single-Centre questionnaire study and a retrospective observational study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Application of intraoperative lung-protective ventilation varies in accordance with the knowledge of anaesthesiologists: a single-Centre questionnaire study and a retrospective observational study
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12871-018-0495-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seung Hyun Kim, Sungwon Na, Woo Kyung Lee, Hyunwoo Choi, Jeongmin Kim

Abstract

The benefits of lung-protective ventilation (LPV) with a low tidal volume (6 mL/kg of ideal body weight [IBW]), limited plateau pressure (< 28-30 cm H2O), and appropriate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome have become apparent and it is now widely adopted in intensive care units. Recently evidence for LPV in general anaesthesia has been accumulated, but it is not yet generally applied by anaesthesiologists in the operating room. This study investigated the perception about intraoperative LPV among 82 anaesthesiologists through a questionnaire survey and identified the differences in ventilator settings according to recognition of lung-protective ventilation. Furthermore, we investigated the changes in the trend for using this form of ventilation during general anaesthesia in the past 10 years. Anaesthesiologists who had received training in LPV were more knowledgeable about this approach. Anaesthesiologists with knowledge of the concept behind LPV strategies applied a lower tidal volume (median (IQR [range]), 8.2 (8.0-9.2 [7.1-10.3]) vs. 9.2 (9.1-10.1 [7.6-10.1]) mL/kg; p = 0.033) and used PEEP more frequently (69/72 [95.8%] vs. 5/8 [62.5%]; p = 0.012; odds ratio, 13.8 [2.19-86.9]) for laparoscopic surgery than did those without such knowledge. Anaesthesiologists who were able to answer a question related to LPV correctly (respondents who chose 'height' to a multiple choice question asking what variables should be considered most important in the initial setting of tidal volume) applied a lower tidal volume in cases of laparoscopic surgery and obese patients. There was an increase in the number of patients receiving LPV (VT < 10 mL/kgIBW and PEEP ≥5 cm H2O) between 2004 and 2014 (0/818 [0.0%] vs. 280/818 [34.2%]; p <  0.001). Our study suggests that the knowledge of LPV is directly related to its implementation, and can explain the increase in LPV use in general anaesthesia. Further studies should assess the impact of using intraoperative LPV on clinical outcomes and should determine the efficacy of education on intraoperative LPV implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 20%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Unspecified 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 14 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 July 2019.
All research outputs
#7,491,883
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#314
of 1,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,594
of 328,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#8
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,510 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 328,940 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 74% of its contemporaries.