↓ Skip to main content

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure in children: a concise review

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 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 positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure in children: a concise review
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, May 2011
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-1-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abolfazl Najaf-Zadeh, Francis Leclerc

Abstract

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) refers to the delivery of mechanical respiratory support without the use of endotracheal intubation (ETI). The present review focused on the effectiveness of NPPV in children > 1 month of age with acute respiratory failure (ARF) due to different conditions. ARF is the most common cause of cardiac arrest in children. Therefore, prompt recognition and treatment of pediatric patients with pending respiratory failure can be lifesaving. Mechanical respiratory support is a critical intervention in many cases of ARF. In recent years, NPPV has been proposed as a valuable alternative to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in this acute setting. Recent physiological studies have demonstrated beneficial effects of NPPV in children with ARF. Several pediatric clinical studies, the majority of which were noncontrolled or case series and of small size, have suggested the effectiveness of NPPV in the treatment of ARF due to acute airway (upper or lower) obstruction or certain primary parenchymal lung disease, and in specific circumstances, such as postoperative or postextubation ARF, immunocompromised patients with ARF, or as a means to facilitate extubation. NPPV was well tolerated with rare major complications and was associated with improved gas exchange, decreased work of breathing, and ETI avoidance in 22-100% of patients. High FiO2 needs or high PaCO2 level on admission or within the first hours after starting NPPV appeared to be the best independent predictive factors for the NPPV failure in children with ARF. However, many important issues, such as the identification of the patient, the right time for NPPV application, and the appropriate setting, are still lacking. Further randomized, controlled trials that address these issues in children with ARF are recommended.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 2%
Brazil 1 1%
Ecuador 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Bulgaria 1 1%
Unknown 91 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 20 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 11%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Master 9 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 8%
Other 30 31%
Unknown 8 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 12 12%

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 27 March 2014.
All research outputs
#2,899,857
of 3,630,112 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#120
of 149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,960
of 93,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,630,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. 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 93,154 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 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.