↓ Skip to main content

Protective ventilation and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, June 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
59 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Protective ventilation and outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, June 2021
DOI 10.1186/s13613-021-00882-w
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliana C. Ferreira, Yeh-Li Ho, Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro Besen, Luiz Marcelo Sa Malbouisson, Leandro Utino Taniguchi, Pedro Vitale Mendes, Eduardo Leite Vieira Costa, Marcelo Park, Renato Daltro-Oliveira, Roberta M. L. Roepke, Joao M. Silva-Jr, Maria Jose Carvalho Carmona, Carlos R. R. Carvalho

Abstract

Approximately 5% of COVID-19 patients develop respiratory failure and need ventilatory support, yet little is known about the impact of mechanical ventilation strategy in COVID-19. Our objective was to describe baseline characteristics, ventilatory parameters, and outcomes of critically ill patients in the largest referral center for COVID-19 in Sao Paulo, Brazil, during the first surge of the pandemic. This cohort included COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) of an academic hospital with 94 ICU beds, a number expanded to 300 during the pandemic as part of a state preparedness plan. Data included demographics, advanced life support therapies, and ventilator parameters. The main outcome was 28-day survival. We used a multivariate Cox model to test the association between protective ventilation and survival, adjusting for PF ratio, pH, compliance, and PEEP. We included 1503 patients from March 30 to June 30, 2020. The mean age was 60 ± 15 years, and 59% were male. During 28-day follow-up, 1180 (79%) patients needed invasive ventilation and 666 (44%) died. For the 984 patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation in the first 24 h of ICU stay, mean tidal volume was 6.5 ± 1.3 mL/kg of ideal body weight, plateau pressure was 24 ± 5 cmH2O, respiratory system compliance was 31.9 (24.4-40.9) mL/cmH2O, and 82% of patients were ventilated with protective ventilation. Noninvasive ventilation was used in 21% of patients, and prone, in 36%. Compliance was associated with survival and did not show a bimodal pattern that would support the presence of two phenotypes. In the multivariable model, protective ventilation (aHR 0.73 [95%CI 0.57-0.94]), adjusted for PF ratio, compliance, PEEP, and arterial pH, was independently associated with survival. During the peak of the epidemic in Sao Paulo, critically ill patients with COVID-19 often required mechanical ventilation and mortality was high. Our findings revealed an association between mechanical ventilation strategy and mortality, highlighting the importance of protective ventilation for patients with COVID-19.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 20%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Researcher 5 5%
Other 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 37 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 40 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 02 January 2024.
All research outputs
#988,750
of 25,621,213 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#111
of 1,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,101
of 460,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#10
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,621,213 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,206 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 460,157 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.