| Title |
Aerosol delivery with two ventilation modes during mechanical ventilation: a randomized study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-016-0169-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan Dugernier, Gregory Reychler, Xavier Wittebole, Jean Roeseler, Virginie Depoortere, Thierry Sottiaux, Jean-Bernard Michotte, Rita Vanbever, Thierry Dugernier, Pierre Goffette, Marie-Agnes Docquier, Christian Raftopoulos, Philippe Hantson, François Jamar, Pierre-François Laterre |
| Abstract |
Volume-controlled ventilation has been suggested to optimize lung deposition during nebulization although promoting spontaneous ventilation is targeted to avoid ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction. Comparing topographic aerosol lung deposition during volume-controlled ventilation and spontaneous ventilation in pressure support has never been performed. The aim of this study was to compare lung deposition of a radiolabeled aerosol generated with a vibrating-mesh nebulizer during invasive mechanical ventilation, with two modes: pressure support ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation. Seventeen postoperative neurosurgery patients without pulmonary disease were randomly ventilated in pressure support or volume-controlled ventilation. Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid labeled with technetium-99m (2 mCi/3 mL) was administrated using a vibrating-mesh nebulizer (Aerogen Solo(®), provided by Aerogen Ltd, Galway, Ireland) connected to the endotracheal tube. Pulmonary and extrapulmonary particles deposition was analyzed using planar scintigraphy. Lung deposition was 10.5 ± 3.0 and 15.1 ± 5.0 % of the nominal dose during pressure support and volume-controlled ventilation, respectively (p < 0.05). Higher endotracheal tube and tracheal deposition was observed during pressure support ventilation (27.4 ± 6.6 vs. 20.7 ± 6.0 %, p < 0.05). A similar penetration index was observed for the right (p = 0.210) and the left lung (p = 0.211) with both ventilation modes. A high intersubject variability of lung deposition was observed with both modes regarding lung doses, aerosol penetration and distribution between the right and the left lung. In the specific conditions of the study, volume-controlled ventilation was associated with higher lung deposition of nebulized particles as compared to pressure support ventilation. The clinical benefit of this effect warrants further studies. Clinical trial registration NCT01879488. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Ireland | 1 | 17% |
| Argentina | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 17 | 24% |
| Researcher | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Engineering | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 13% |
| Unknown | 23 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,375,544
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#591
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,426
of 366,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#15
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 366,500 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 53% of its contemporaries.