↓ Skip to main content

Bedside selection of positive end-expiratory pressure by electrical impedance tomography in hypoxemic patients: a feasibility study

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, July 2017
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
22 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Bedside selection of positive end-expiratory pressure by electrical impedance tomography in hypoxemic patients: a feasibility study
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13613-017-0299-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nilde Eronia, Tommaso Mauri, Elisabetta Maffezzini, Stefano Gatti, Alfio Bronco, Laura Alban, Filippo Binda, Tommaso Sasso, Cristina Marenghi, Giacomo Grasselli, Giuseppe Foti, Antonio Pesenti, Giacomo Bellani

Abstract

Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is a key element of mechanical ventilation. It should optimize recruitment, without causing excessive overdistension, but controversy exists on the best method to set it. The purpose of the study was to test the feasibility of setting PEEP with electrical impedance tomography in order to prevent lung de-recruitment following a recruitment maneuver. We enrolled 16 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation with PaO2/FiO2 <300 mmHg. In all patients, under constant tidal volume (6-8 ml/kg) PEEP was set based on the PEEP/FiO2 table proposed by the ARDS network (PEEPARDSnet). We performed a recruitment maneuver and monitored the end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) over 10 min. If the EELI signal decreased during this period, the recruitment maneuver was repeated and PEEP increased by 2 cmH2O. This procedure was repeated until the EELI maintained a stability over time (PEEPEIT). The procedure was feasible in 87% patients. PEEPEIT was higher than PEEPARDSnet (13 ± 3 vs. 9 ± 2 cmH2O, p < 0.001). PaO2/FiO2 improved during PEEPEIT and driving pressure decreased. Recruited volume correlated with the decrease in driving pressure but not with oxygenation improvement. Finally, regional alveolar hyperdistention and collapse was reduced in dependent lung layers and increased in non-dependent lung layers. In hypoxemic patients, a PEEP selection strategy aimed at stabilizing alveolar recruitment guided by EIT at the bedside was feasible and safe. This strategy led, in comparison with the ARDSnet table, to higher PEEP, improved oxygenation and reduced driving pressure, allowing to estimate the relative weight of overdistension and recruitment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Other 10 11%
Student > Master 8 9%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 26 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 53%
Engineering 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 25 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 17 December 2019.
All research outputs
#1,870,837
of 25,382,250 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#230
of 1,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,158
of 320,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#4
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,250 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 320,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.