↓ Skip to main content

Patient-ventilator asynchronies: may the respiratory mechanics play a role?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Patient-ventilator asynchronies: may the respiratory mechanics play a role?
Published in
Critical Care, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12580
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annalisa Carlucci, Lara Pisani, Piero Ceriana, Alberto Malovini, Stefano Nava

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The mechanisms leading to patient/ventilator asynchrony has never been systematically assessed. We studied the possible association between asynchrony and respiratory mechanics in patients ready to be enrolled for a home non-invasive ventilatory program. Secondarily, we looked for possible differences in the amount of asynchronies between obstructive and restrictive patients and a possible role of asynchrony in influencing the tolerance of non-invasive ventilation (NIV). METHODS: The respiratory pattern and mechanics of 69 consecutive patients with chronic respiratory failure were recorded during spontaneous breathing. After that patients underwent non-invasive ventilation for 60 minutes with a "dedicated" NIV platform in a pressure support mode during the day. In the last 15 minutes of this period, asynchrony events were detected and classified as ineffective effort (IE), double triggering (DT) and auto-triggering (AT). RESULTS: The overall number of asynchronies was not influenced by any variable of respiratory mechanics or by the underlying pathologies (that is, obstructive vs restrictive patients). There was a high prevalence of asynchrony events (58% of patients). IEs were the most frequent asynchronous events (45% of patients) and were associated with a higher level of pressure support. A high incidence of asynchrony events and IE were associated with a poor tolerance of NIV. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that in non-invasively ventilated patients for a chronic respiratory failure, the incidence of patient-ventilator asynchronies was relatively high, but did not correlate with any parameters of respiratory mechanics or underlying disease.

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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 87 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Other 14 16%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Postgraduate 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 9 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 63%
Engineering 11 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Psychology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 9 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,599,332
of 14,993,348 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,303
of 4,687 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,421
of 152,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#44
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,993,348 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,687 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 152,989 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 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 68% of its contemporaries.