↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of dead-space ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2016
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
46 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Assessment of dead-space ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective observational study
Published in
Critical Care, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1311-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonne Doorduin, Joeke L. Nollet, Manon P. A. J. Vugts, Lisanne H. Roesthuis, Ferdi Akankan, Johannes G. van der Hoeven, Hieronymus W. H. van Hees, Leo M. A. Heunks

Abstract

Physiological dead space (VD/VT) represents the fraction of ventilation not participating in gas exchange. In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), VD/VT has prognostic value and can be used to guide ventilator settings. However, VD/VT is rarely calculated in clinical practice, because its measurement is perceived as challenging. Recently, a novel technique to calculate partial pressure of carbon dioxide in alveolar air (PACO2) using volumetric capnography (VCap) was validated. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate how VCap and other available techniques to measure PACO2 and partial pressure of carbon dioxide in mixed expired air (PeCO2) affect calculated VD/VT. In a prospective, observational study, 15 post-cardiac surgery patients and 15 patients with ARDS were included. PACO2 was measured using VCap to calculate Bohr dead space or substituted with partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO2) to calculate the Enghoff modification. PeCO2 was measured in expired air using three techniques: Douglas bag (DBag), indirect calorimetry (InCal), and VCap. Subsequently, VD/VT was calculated using four methods: Enghoff-DBag, Enghoff-InCal, Enghoff-VCap, and Bohr-VCap. PaCO2 was higher than PACO2, particularly in patients with ARDS (post-cardiac surgery PACO2 = 4.3 ± 0.6 kPa vs. PaCO2 = 5.2 ± 0.5 kPa, P < 0.05; ARDS PACO2 = 3.9 ± 0.8 kPa vs. PaCO2 = 6.9 ± 1.7 kPa, P < 0.05). There was good agreement in PeCO2 calculated with DBag vs. VCap (post-cardiac surgery bias = 0.04 ± 0.19 kPa; ARDS bias = 0.03 ± 0.27 kPa) and relatively low agreement with DBag vs. InCal (post-cardiac surgery bias = -1.17 ± 0.50 kPa; ARDS mean bias = -0.15 ± 0.53 kPa). These differences strongly affected calculated VD/VT. For example, in patients with ARDS, VD/VTcalculated with Enghoff-InCal was much higher than Bohr-VCap (VD/VT Enghoff-InCal = 66 ± 10 % vs. VD/VT Bohr-VCap = 45 ± 7 %; P < 0.05). Different techniques to measure PACO2 and PeCO2 result in clinically relevant mean and individual differences in calculated VD/VT, particularly in patients with ARDS. Volumetric capnography is a promising technique to calculate true Bohr dead space. Our results demonstrate the challenges clinicians face in interpreting an apparently simple measurement such as VD/VT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Hungary 1 1%
Unknown 89 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 16%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 23 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Engineering 4 4%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 22 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 13 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,488,962
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,314
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,561
of 312,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#48
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 312,444 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.