↓ Skip to main content

Unilateral mechanical asymmetry: positional effects on lung volumes and transpulmonary pressure

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Unilateral mechanical asymmetry: positional effects on lung volumes and transpulmonary pressure
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/2197-425x-2-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gustavo A Cortes-Puentes, Kenneth Gard, Joseph C Keenan, Alexander Adams, David Dries, John J Marini

Abstract

Ventilated patients with asymmetry of lung or chest wall mechanics may be vulnerable to differing lung stresses or strains dependent on body position. Our purpose was to examine transpulmonary pressure (P TP) and end-expiratory lung volume (functional residual capacity (FRC)) during body positioning changes in an animal model under the influence of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) or experimental pleural effusion (PLEF). Fourteen deeply anesthetized swine were studied including tracheostomy, thoracostomy, and esophageal catheter placement. Animals were ventilated at V T = 10 ml/kg, frequency of 15, I/E = 1:2, and FIO2 = 0.5. The animals were randomized to supine, prone, right lateral, left lateral, and semi-Fowler positions with a PEEP of 1 cm H2O (PEEP1) or a PEEP of 10 cm H2O (PEEP10) applied. Experimental PLEF was generated by 10 ml/kg saline instilled into either pleural space. P TP and FRC were determined in each condition. No significant differences in FRC were found among the four horizontal positions. Compared to horizontal positioning, semi-Fowler's increased FRC (p < 0.001) by 56% at PEEP1 and 54% at PEEP10 without PLEF and by 131% at PEEP1 and 98% at PEEP10 with PLEF. Inspiratory or expiratory P TP showed insignificant differences across positions at both levels of PEEP. Consistently negative end-expiratory P TP at PEEP1 increased to positive values with PEEP10. FRC did not differ among horizontal positions; however, semi-Fowler's positioning significantly raised FRC. P TP proved insensitive to mechanical asymmetry. While end-expiratory P TP was negative at PEEP1, applying PEEP10 caused a transition to positive P TP, suggestive of reopening of initially compressed lung units.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 26%
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 26%
Mathematics 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 12 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,948,412
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#129
of 449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,352
of 308,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 308,645 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them