↓ Skip to main content

Immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE database

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
61 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 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
Immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: secondary analysis of the LUNG SAFE database
Published in
Critical Care, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2079-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Cortegiani, Fabiana Madotto, Cesare Gregoretti, Giacomo Bellani, John G. Laffey, Tai Pham, Frank Van Haren, Antonino Giarratano, Massimo Antonelli, Antonio Pesenti, Giacomo Grasselli

Abstract

The aim of this study was to describe data on epidemiology, ventilatory management, and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in immunocompromised patients. We performed a post hoc analysis on the cohort of immunocompromised patients enrolled in the Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) study. The LUNG SAFE study was an international, prospective study including hypoxemic patients in 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents. Of 2813 patients with ARDS, 584 (20.8%) were immunocompromised, 38.9% of whom had an unspecified cause. Pneumonia, nonpulmonary sepsis, and noncardiogenic shock were their most common risk factors for ARDS. Hospital mortality was higher in immunocompromised than in immunocompetent patients (52.4% vs 36.2%; p < 0.0001), despite similar severity of ARDS. Decisions regarding limiting life-sustaining measures were significantly more frequent in immunocompromised patients (27.1% vs 18.6%; p < 0.0001). Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) as first-line treatment was higher in immunocompromised patients (20.9% vs 15.9%; p = 0.0048), and immunodeficiency remained independently associated with the use of NIV after adjustment for confounders. Forty-eight percent of the patients treated with NIV were intubated, and their mortality was not different from that of the patients invasively ventilated ab initio. Immunosuppression is frequent in patients with ARDS, and infections are the main risk factors for ARDS in these immunocompromised patients. Their management differs from that of immunocompetent patients, particularly the greater use of NIV as first-line ventilation strategy. Compared with immunocompetent subjects, they have higher mortality regardless of ARDS severity as well as a higher frequency of limitation of life-sustaining measures. Nonetheless, nearly half of these patients survive to hospital discharge. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02010073 . Registered on 12 December 2013.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 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 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 187 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 35 19%
Researcher 25 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 17 9%
Professor 16 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 6%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 48 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 59 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 07 February 2019.
All research outputs
#786,262
of 18,100,306 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#684
of 5,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,940
of 288,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,100,306 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,424 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 288,529 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them