↓ Skip to main content

Performance comparison of a new automated cuff pressure controller with currently available devices in both basic research and clinical settings

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Performance comparison of a new automated cuff pressure controller with currently available devices in both basic research and clinical settings
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40560-016-0126-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Junichi Michikoshi, Shigekiyo Matsumoto, Hiroshi Miyawaki, Harushi Niu, Katsuhiro Seo, Makoto Yamamoto, Shu-ichi Tokunaga, Takaaki Kitano

Abstract

The management of tracheal tube cuff pressure in patients receiving mechanical ventilation is important for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Currently, cuff pressure is intermittently monitored with a pressure gauge and adjusted when necessary in a routine practice. However, this method results in wide variations in pressure, and adequate management is difficult due to the spontaneous release of air from the cuff, which reduces cuff pressure. In order to continuously maintain a uniform cuff pressure, we developed a new automated cuff pressure controller and compared its properties with existing devices. The effectiveness of the new device was assessed with a model trachea/lung and tracheal tube by measuring cuff pressure while on mechanical ventilation. An electrically powered automatic cuff controller or manual cuff pressure control was used for comparison purposes. The effectiveness of the new device was also examined in patients receiving mechanical ventilation by continuously measuring cuff pressure for a 24-h period. Cuff pressure was uniformly maintained with the new device. Moreover, in the clinical setting, variation in pressure from the set pressure was minimal with both the new device and existing device, relative to the intermittent monitoring method. This suggests that, as with the existing device, uniform cuff pressure management is possible with the new device. Our results demonstrate the ability of the new cuff pressure controller to manage cuff pressure without the need of a power source, highlighting its potential utility in clinical settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 17%
Student > Postgraduate 2 17%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Student > Master 2 17%
Librarian 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 8%
Unknown 2 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 January 2016.
All research outputs
#20,300,248
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#476
of 514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#331,821
of 395,128 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#14
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. 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 395,128 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 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.