↓ Skip to main content

Effect of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation on esophageal and transpulmonary pressures in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Effect of high-frequency oscillatory ventilation on esophageal and transpulmonary pressures in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13613-016-0181-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christophe Guervilly, Jean-Marie Forel, Sami Hraiech, Antoine Roch, Daniel Talmor, Laurent Papazian

Abstract

High-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) has not been shown to be beneficial in the management of moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). There is uncertainty about the actual pressure applied into the lung during HFOV. We therefore performed a study to compare the transpulmonary pressure (P L) during conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) and different levels of mean airway pressure (mPaw) during HFOV. This is a prospective randomized crossover study in a university teaching hospital. An esophageal balloon catheter was used to measure esophageal pressures (Pes) at end inspiration and end expiration and to calculate P L. Measurements were taken during ventilation with CMV (CMVpre) after which patients were switched to HFOV with three 1-h different levels of mPaw set at +5, +10 and +15 cm H2O above the mean airway pressure measured during CMV. Patients were thereafter switched back to CMV (CMVpost). Ten patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS were included. We demonstrated a linear increase in Pes and P L with the increase in mPaw during HFOV. Contrary to CMV, P L was always positive during HFOV whatever the level of mPaw applied but not associated with improvement in oxygenation. We found significant correlations between mPaw and Pes. HFOV with high level of mPaw increases transpulmonary pressures without improvement in oxygenation.

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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 2 7%
Other 7 24%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Design 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 24%
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 31 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,381,871
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#829
of 1,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,000
of 336,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#22
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 336,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.