| Title |
Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory failure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-016-4314-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eddy Fan, Luciano Gattinoni, Alain Combes, Matthieu Schmidt, Giles Peek, Dan Brodie, Thomas Muller, Andrea Morelli, V. Marco Ranieri, Antonio Pesenti, Laurent Brochard, Carol Hodgson, Cecile Van Kiersbilck, Antoine Roch, Michael Quintel, Laurent Papazian |
| Abstract |
Despite expensive life-sustaining interventions delivered in the ICU, mortality and morbidity in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) remain unacceptably high. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has emerged as a promising intervention that may provide more efficacious supportive care to these patients. Improvements in technology have made ECMO safer and easier to use, allowing for the potential of more widespread application in patients with ARF. A greater appreciation of the complications associated with the placement of an artificial airway and mechanical ventilation has led clinicians and researchers to seek viable alternatives to providing supportive care in these patients. Thus, this review will summarize the current knowledge regarding the use of venovenous (VV)-ECMO for ARF and describe some of the recent controversies in the field, such as mechanical ventilation, anticoagulation and transfusion therapy, and ethical concerns in patients supported with VV-ECMO. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| France | 1 | 25% |
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 245 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 239 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 44 | 18% |
| Researcher | 35 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 22 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 57 | 23% |
| Unknown | 47 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 159 | 65% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 7% |
| Engineering | 6 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 3% |
| Unknown | 51 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 September 2019.
All research outputs
#15,055,192
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#4,193
of 5,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,139
of 318,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#63
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,560 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 318,591 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.