↓ Skip to main content

Dexmedetomidine is effective and safe during NIV in infants and young children with acute respiratory failure

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, August 2018
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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Dexmedetomidine is effective and safe during NIV in infants and young children with acute respiratory failure
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12887-018-1256-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Piastra, A. Pizza, S. Gaddi, E. Luca, O. Genovese, E. Picconi, D. De Luca, G. Conti

Abstract

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is increasingly utilized in infants and young children, though associated with high failure rates due to agitation and poor compliance, mostly if patient-ventilator synchronization is required. A retrospective cohort study was carried out in an academic pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Dexmedetomidine (DEX) was infused as unique sedative in 40 consecutive pediatric patients (median age 16 months) previously showing intolerance and agitation during NIV application. During NIV clinical application both COMFORT-B Score and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) were serially evaluated. Four patients experiencing NIV failure, all due to pulmonary condition worsening, required intubation and invasive ventilation. 36 patients were successfully weaned from NIV under DEX sedation and discharged from PICU. All patients survived until home discharge. Our data suggest that DEX may represent an effective sedative agent in infants and children showing agitation during NIV. Early use of DEX in infants/children receiving NIV for acute respiratory failure (ARF) should be considered safe and capable of improving NIV, thus permitting both lung recruitment and patient-ventilator synchronization.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Other 6 16%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Unknown 9 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 19 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,832,813
of 14,521,746 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#305
of 1,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,048
of 274,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,521,746 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,826 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 274,138 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 80% 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