↓ Skip to main content

Daily use of extracorporeal CO2 removal in a critical care unit: indications and results

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Daily use of extracorporeal CO2 removal in a critical care unit: indications and results
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40560-018-0304-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hadrien Winiszewski, François Aptel, François Belon, Nicolas Belin, Claire Chaignat, Cyrille Patry, Cecilia Clermont, Elise David, Jean-Christophe Navellou, Guylaine Labro, Gaël Piton, Gilles Capellier

Abstract

While outcome improvement with extracorporeal CO2 removal (ECCO2R) is not demonstrated, a strong pathophysiological rational supports its use in the setting of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and COPD exacerbation. We aimed to describe our single-center experience of ECCO2R indications and outcome. Patients treated with ECCO2R in our medial ICU, from March 2014 to November 2017, were retrospectively enrolled. Primary end point was evolution of ventilator settings during the two first days following ECCO2R start. Thirty-three patients received ECCO2R. Seventeen were managed with Hemolung®, 10 with Prismalung®, 4 with ILA®, and 2 with Cardiohelp®. Indications for ECCO2R were mild or moderate ARDS (n = 16), COPD exacerbation (n = 11), or uncontrolled hypercapnia due to other causes (n = 6). Four patients were not intubated at the time of ECCO2R start. Median duration of ECCO2R treatment was 7 days [5-10]. In ARDS patients, between baseline and day 2, median tidal volume and driving pressure decreased from 5.3 [4.4-5.9] mL/kg and 10 [8-15] to 3.8 [3.3-4.1] mL/kg and 9 [8-11], respectively. Prone positioning was performed in 10 of the 16 patients, without serious adverse event. In COPD patients, between baseline and day 2, median ventilation minute and PaCO2 decreased significantly from respectively 7.6 [6.6-8.7] L/min and 9.4 [8.4-10.1] kPa to 5.8 [4.9-6.2] L/min and 6 [5.3-6.8] kPa. Four out of 11 COPD patients were extubated while on ECCO2R. Device thrombosis occurred in 5 patients (15%). Hemolysis was documented in 16 patients (48%). One patient died of intracranial hemorrhage, while on ECCO2R. Twenty-four patients were discharged from ICU alive. Twenty-eight day mortality was 31% in ARDS, 9% in COPD patients, and 50% in other causes of refractory hypercapnic respiratory failure. ECCO2R was useful to apply ultra-protective ventilation among ARDS patients and improved PaCO2, pH, and minute ventilation in COPD patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Other 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 27 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 37%
Unspecified 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 30 48%
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 23 September 2022.
All research outputs
#7,753,975
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#295
of 528 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,282
of 330,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 528 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 330,188 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.