↓ Skip to main content

Noninvasive Ventilation During Immediate Postoperative Period in Cardiac Surgery Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
Noninvasive Ventilation During Immediate Postoperative Period in Cardiac Surgery Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular, January 2017
DOI 10.21470/1678-9741-2017-0032
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzimara Monteiro Pieczkoski, Ane Glauce Freitas Margarites, Graciele Sbruzzi

Abstract

To verify the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation compared to conventional physiotherapy or oxygen therapy in the mortality rate and prevention of pulmonary complications in patients during the immediate postoperative period of cardiac surgery. Systematic review and meta-analysis recorded in the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (number CRD42016036441). The research included the following databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, PEDro, LILACS and manual search of the references of studies published until March 2016. The review included randomized controlled trials with patients during the immediate postoperative period of cardiac surgery, which compared the use of noninvasive ventilation, BiLevel modes, continuous positive airway pressure, intermittent positive pressure breathing and positive pressure ventilation with conventional physiotherapy or oxygen therapy, and assessed the mortality rate, occurrence of pulmonary complications (atelectasis, pneumonia, acute respiratory failure, hypoxemia), reintubation rate, ventilation time, time spent in the intensive care unit (ICU), length of hospital stay and partial pressure of oxygen. Among the 479 selected articles, ten were included in the systematic review (n=1050 patients) and six in the meta-analysis. The use of noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce the risk for atelectasis (RR: 0.60; CI95% 0.28-1.28); pneumonia (RR: 0.20; CI95% 0.04-1.16), reintubation rate (RR: 0.51; CI95%: 0.15-1.66), and time spent in the ICU (-0.04 days; CI95%: -0.13; 0.05). Prophylactic noninvasive ventilation did not significantly reduce the occurrence of pulmonary complications such as atelectasis, pneumonia, reintubation rate and time spent in the ICU. The use is still unproven and new randomized controlled trials should be carried out.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 12%
Student > Master 17 11%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 69 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 15%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 72 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular
#282
of 363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#362,560
of 421,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 363 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 421,709 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.