↓ Skip to main content

Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute respiratory failure following upper abdominal surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
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 (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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 following upper abdominal surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009134.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Debora AS Faria, Edina MK da Silva, Álvaro N Atallah, Flávia MR Vital

Abstract

Each year, more than four million abdominal surgeries are performed in the US and over 250,000 in England. Acute respiratory failure, a common complication that can affect 30% to 50% of people after upper abdominal surgery, can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Noninvasive ventilation has been associated with lower rates of tracheal intubation in adults with acute respiratory failure, thus reducing the incidence of complications and mortality. This review compared the effectiveness and safety of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) versus standard oxygen therapy in the treatment of acute respiratory failure after upper abdominal surgery. To assess the effectiveness and safety of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV), that is, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel NPPV, in reducing mortality and the rate of tracheal intubation in adults with acute respiratory failure after upper abdominal surgery, compared to standard therapy (oxygen therapy), and to assess changes in arterial blood gas levels, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, gastric insufflation, and anastomotic leakage. The date of the last search was 12 May 2015. We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to May 2015), EMBASE (Ovid SP, 1974 to May 2015); the physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro) (1999 to May 2015); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL, EBSCOhost, 1982 to May 2015), and LILACS (BIREME, 1986 to May 2015). We reviewed reference lists of included studies and contacted experts. We also searched grey literature sources. We checked databases of ongoing trials such as www.controlled-trials.com/ and www.trialscentral.org/. We did not apply language restrictions. We selected randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials involving adults with acute respiratory failure after upper abdominal surgery who were treated with CPAP or bilevel NPPV with, or without, drug therapy as standard medical care, compared to adults treated with oxygen therapy with, or without, standard medical care. Two authors independently selected and abstracted data from eligible studies using a standardized form. We evaluated study quality by assessing allocation concealment; random sequence generation; incomplete outcome data; blinding of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors; selective reporting; and adherence to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. We included two trials involving 269 participants. The participants were mostly men (67%); the mean age was 65 years. The trials were conducted in China and Italy (one was a multicentre trial). Both trials included adults with acute respiratory failure after upper abdominal surgery. We judged both trials at high risk of bias. Compared to oxygen therapy, CPAP or bilevel NPPV may reduce the rate of tracheal intubation (risk ratio (RR) 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.83; low quality evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome of 11. There was very low quality evidence that the intervention may also reduce ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD) -1.84 days; 95% CI -3.53 to -0.15). We found no differences for mortality (low quality evidence) and hospital length of stay. There was insufficient evidence to be certain that CPAP or NPPV had an effect on anastomotic leakage, pneumonia-related complications, and sepsis or infections. Findings from one trial of 60 participants suggested that bilevel NPPV, compared to oxygen therapy, may improve blood gas levels and blood pH one hour after the intervention (partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2): MD 22.5 mm Hg; 95% CI 17.19 to 27.81; pH: MD 0.06; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11; partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PCO2) levels (MD -9.8 mm Hg; 95% CI -14.07 to -5.53). The trials included in this systematic review did not present data on the following outcomes that we intended to assess: gastric insufflation, fistulae, pneumothorax, bleeding, skin breakdown, eye irritation, sinus congestion, oronasal drying, and patient-ventilator asynchrony. The findings of this review indicate that CPAP or bilevel NPPV is an effective and safe intervention for the treatment of adults with acute respiratory failure after upper abdominal surgery. However, based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, the quality of the evidence was low or very low. More good quality studies are needed to confirm these findings.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 21%
Unspecified 25 20%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Other 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Other 35 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 42%
Unspecified 28 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 20%
Psychology 4 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 14 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 26 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,201,242
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,495
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,068
of 249,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#124
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 249,610 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.