↓ Skip to main content

Synchronized mechanical ventilation for respiratory support in newborn infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Synchronized mechanical ventilation for respiratory support in newborn infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000456.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Greenough, Thomas E Rossor, Adesh Sundaresan, Vadivelam Murthy, Anthony D Milner

Abstract

During synchronised mechanical ventilation, positive airway pressure and spontaneous inspiration coincide. If synchronous ventilation is provoked, adequate gas exchange should be achieved at lower peak airway pressures, potentially reducing baro/volutrauma, air leak and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Synchronous ventilation can potentially be achieved by manipulation of rate and inspiratory time during conventional ventilation and employment of patient-triggered ventilation. To compare the efficacy of:(i) synchronised mechanical ventilation, delivered as high-frequency positive pressure ventilation (HFPPV) or patient-triggered ventilation (assist control ventilation (ACV) and synchronous intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV)), with conventional ventilation or high-frequency oscillation (HFO);(ii) different types of triggered ventilation (ACV, SIMV, pressure-regulated volume control ventilation (PRVCV), SIMV with pressure support (PS) and pressure support ventilation (PSV)). We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to June 5 2016), EMBASE (1980 to June 5 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to June 5 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing synchronised ventilation delivered as HFPPV to CMV, or ACV/SIMV to CMV or HFO in neonates. Randomised trials comparing different triggered ventilation modes (ACV, SIMV, SIMV plus PS, PRVCV and PSV) in neonates. Data were collected regarding clinical outcomes including mortality, air leaks (pneumothorax or pulmonary interstitial emphysema (PIE)), severe intraventricular haemorrhage (grades 3 and 4), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (oxygen dependency beyond 28 days), moderate/severe BPD (oxygen/respiratory support dependency beyond 36 weeks' postmenstrual age (PMA) and duration of weaning/ventilation.Eight comparisons were made: (i) HFPPV versus CMV; (ii) ACV/SIMV versus CMV; (iii) SIMV or SIMV + PS versus HFO; iv) ACV versus SIMV; (v) SIMV plus PS versus SIMV; vi) SIMV versus PRVCV; vii) SIMV vs PSV; viii) ACV versus PSV. Data analysis was conducted using relative risk for categorical outcomes, mean difference for outcomes measured on a continuous scale. Twenty-two studies are included in this review. The meta-analysis demonstrates that HFPPV compared to CMV was associated with a reduction in the risk of air leak (typical relative risk (RR) for pneumothorax was 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.93). ACV/SIMV compared to CMV was associated with a shorter duration of ventilation (mean difference (MD) -38.3 hours, 95% CI -53.90 to -22.69). SIMV or SIMV + PS was associated with a greater risk of moderate/severe BPD compared to HFO (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.65) and a longer duration of mechanical ventilation compared to HFO (MD 1.89 days, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.74).ACV compared to SIMV was associated with a trend to a shorter duration of weaning (MD -42.38 hours, 95% CI -94.35 to 9.60). Neither HFPPV nor triggered ventilation was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of BPD. There was a non-significant trend towards a lower mortality rate using HFPPV versus CMV and a non-significant trend towards a higher mortality rate using triggered ventilation versus CMV. No disadvantage of HFPPV or triggered ventilation was noted regarding other outcomes. Compared to conventional ventilation, benefit is demonstrated for both HFPPV and triggered ventilation with regard to a reduction in air leak and a shorter duration of ventilation, respectively. In none of the trials was complex respiratory monitoring undertaken and thus it is not possible to conclude that the mechanism of producing those benefits is by provocation of synchronised ventilation. Triggered ventilation in the form of SIMV ± PS resulted in a greater risk of BPD and duration of ventilation compared to HFO. Optimisation of trigger and ventilator design with respect to respiratory diagnosis is encouraged before embarking on further trials. It is essential that newer forms of triggered ventilation are tested in randomised trials that are adequately powered to assess long-term outcomes before they are incorporated into routine clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 127 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Student > Master 18 14%
Student > Postgraduate 15 12%
Other 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Other 36 28%
Unknown 16 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 18 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 17 April 2019.
All research outputs
#721,867
of 13,622,595 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,271
of 10,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,583
of 260,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,622,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. 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 260,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 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 72% of its contemporaries.