↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of pneumotachography and anemometery for flow measurement during mechanical ventilation with volatile anesthetics

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Readers on

mendeley
11 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.
Article details
Title
Comparison of pneumotachography and anemometery for flow measurement during mechanical ventilation with volatile anesthetics
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10877-016-9956-z
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Volatile anesthetics alter the physical properties of inhaled gases, such as density and viscosity. We hypothesized that the use of these agents during mechanical ventilation would yield systematic biases in estimates of flow ([Formula: see text]) and tidal volume (V T) for two commonly used flowmeters: the pneumotachograph (PNT), which measures a differential pressure across a calibrated resistive element, and the hot-wire anemometer (HWA), which operates based on convective heat transfer from a current-carrying wire to a flowing gas. We measured [Formula: see text] during ventilation of a spring-loaded mechanical test lung, using both the PNT and HWA placed in series at the airway opening. Delivered V T was estimated from the numerically-integrated [Formula: see text]. Measurements were acquired under baseline conditions with room air, and during ventilation with increasing concentrations of isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane. We also evaluated a simple compensation technique for HWA flow, which accounted for changes in gas mixture density. We found that discrepancies in estimated V T between the PNT and HWA occurred during ventilation with isoflurane (6.3 ± 3.0%), sevoflurane (10.0 ± 7.3%), and desflurane (25.8 ± 17.2%) compared to baseline conditions. The magnitude of these discrepancies increased with anesthetic concentration. A simple compensation factor based on density reduced observed differences between the flowmeters, regardless of the anesthetic or concentration. These data indicate that the choice and concentration of anesthetic agents are primary factors for differences in estimated V T between the PNT and HWA. Such discrepancies may be compensated by accounting for alterations in gas density.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 27%
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Other 1 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 55%
Engineering 3 27%
Unknown 2 18%
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 01 August 2023.
All research outputs
#9,942,090
of 32,674,756 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#317
of 1,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,027
of 324,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,674,756 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 324,712 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 69% of its contemporaries.