↓ Skip to main content

Preliminary experience on the safety and tolerability of mechanical “insufflation-exsufflation” in subjects with artificial airway

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 536)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Preliminary experience on the safety and tolerability of mechanical “insufflation-exsufflation” in subjects with artificial airway
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40635-018-0173-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miguel Sánchez-García, Passio Santos, Gema Rodríguez-Trigo, Fernando Martínez-Sagasti, Tomás Fariña-González, Ángela del Pino-Ramírez, Carlos Cardenal-Sánchez, Beatriz Busto-González, Mónica Requesens-Solera, Mercedes Nieto-Cabrera, Francisco Romero-Romero, Antonio Núñez-Reiz

Abstract

Catheter suctioning of respiratory secretions in intubated subjects is limited to the proximal airway and associated with traumatic lesions to the mucosa and poor tolerance. "Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation" exerts positive pressure, followed by an abrupt drop to negative pressure. Potential advantages of this technique are aspiration of distal airway secretions, avoiding trauma, and improving tolerance. We applied insufflation of 50 cmH2O for 3 s and exsufflation of - 45 cmH2O for 4 s in patients with an endotracheal tube or tracheostomy cannula requiring secretion suctioning. Cycles of 10 to 12 insufflations-exsufflations were performed and repeated if secretions were aspirated and visible in the proximal artificial airway. Clinical and laboratory parameters were collected before and 5 and 60 min after the procedure. Subjects were followed during their ICU stay until discharge or death. Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation was applied 26 times to 7 male and 6 female subjects requiring suctioning. Mean age was 62.6 ± 20 years and mean Apache II score 23.3 ± 7.4 points. At each session, a median of 2 (IQR 1; 2) cycles on median day of intubation 11.5 (IQR 6.25; 25.75) were performed. Mean insufflation tidal volume was 1043.6 ± 649.9 ml. No statistically significant differences were identified between baseline and post-procedure time points. Barotrauma, desaturation, atelectasis, hemoptysis, or other airway complication and hemodynamic complications were not detected. All, except one, of the mechanical insufflation-exsufflation sessions were productive, showing secretions in the proximal artificial airway, and were well tolerated. Our preliminary data suggest that mechanical insufflation-exsufflation may be safe and effective in patients with artificial airway. Safety and efficacy need to be confirmed in larger studies with different patient populations. EudraCT 2017-005201-13 (EU Clinical Trials Register).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 8 10%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 25 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 26%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 26 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,828,881
of 25,393,071 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#50
of 536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,890
of 343,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,071 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 536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 343,144 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.