↓ Skip to main content

Lung hyperinflation by mechanical ventilation versus isolated tracheal aspiration in the bronchial hygiene of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation

Overview of attention for article published in Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Lung hyperinflation by mechanical ventilation versus isolated tracheal aspiration in the bronchial hygiene of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation
Published in
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva, March 2016
DOI 10.5935/0103-507x.20160010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Assmann, Crisiela Brum, Vieira, Paulo José Cardoso, Kutchak, Fernanda, Rieder, Marcelo de Mello, Forgiarini, Soraia Genebra Ibrahim, Forgiarini Junior, Luiz Alberto

Abstract

To determine the efficacy of lung hyperinflation maneuvers via a mechanical ventilator compared to isolated tracheal aspiration for removing secretions, normalizing hemodynamics and improving lung mechanics in patients on mechanical ventilation. This was a randomized crossover clinical trial including patients admitted to the intensive care unit and on mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours. Patients were randomized to receive either isolated tracheal aspiration (Control Group) or lung hyperinflation by mechanical ventilator (MVH Group). Hemodynamic and mechanical respiratory parameters were measured along with the amount of aspirated secretions. A total of 50 patients were included. The mean age of the patients was 44.7 ± 21.6 years, and 31 were male. Compared to the Control Group, the MVH Group showed greater aspirated secretion amount (3.9g versus 6.4g, p = 0.0001), variation in mean dynamic compliance (-1.3 ± 2.3 versus -2.9 ± 2.3; p = 0.008), and expired tidal volume (-0.7 ± 0.0 versus -54.1 ± 38.8, p = 0.0001) as well as a significant decrease in peak inspiratory pressure (0.2 ± 0.1 versus 2.5 ± 0.1; p = 0.001). In the studied sample, the MVH technique led to a greater amount of aspirated secretions, significant increases in dynamic compliance and expired tidal volume and a significant reduction in peak inspiratory pressure.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 29%
Student > Postgraduate 8 13%
Student > Master 6 10%
Professor 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Materials Science 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 12 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 April 2016.
All research outputs
#9,992,362
of 17,359,532 outputs
Outputs from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#89
of 271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,439
of 269,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,359,532 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 271 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 269,658 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 52% 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