↓ Skip to main content

End-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring using a naso-buccal sensor is not appropriate to monitor capnia during non-invasive ventilation

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
End-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring using a naso-buccal sensor is not appropriate to monitor capnia during non-invasive ventilation
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13613-014-0042-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lise Piquilloud, David Thevoz, Philippe Jolliet, Jean-Pierre Revelly

Abstract

In acute respiratory failure, arterial blood gas analysis (ABG) is used to diagnose hypercapnia. Once non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is initiated, ABG should at least be repeated within 1 h to assess PaCO2 response to treatment in order to help detect NIV failure. The main aim of this study was to assess whether measuring end-tidal CO2 (EtCO2) with a dedicated naso-buccal sensor during NIV could predict PaCO2 variation and/or PaCO2 absolute values. The additional aim was to assess whether active or passive prolonged expiratory maneuvers could improve the agreement between expiratory CO2 and PaCO2. This is a prospective study in adult patients suffering from acute hypercapnic respiratory failure (PaCO2 ≥ 45 mmHg) treated with NIV. EtCO2 and expiratory CO2 values during active and passive expiratory maneuvers were measured using a dedicated naso-buccal sensor and compared to concomitant PaCO2 values. The agreement between two consecutive values of EtCO2 (delta EtCO2) and two consecutive values of PaCO2 (delta PaCO2) and between PaCO2 and concomitant expiratory CO2 values was assessed using the Bland and Altman method adjusted for the effects of repeated measurements. Fifty-four datasets from a population of 11 patients (8 COPD and 3 non-COPD patients), were included in the analysis. PaCO2 values ranged from 39 to 80 mmHg, and EtCO2 from 12 to 68 mmHg. In the observed agreement between delta EtCO2 and deltaPaCO2, bias was -0.3 mmHg, and limits of agreement were -17.8 and 17.2 mmHg. In agreement between PaCO2 and EtCO2, bias was 14.7 mmHg, and limits of agreement were -6.6 and 36.1 mmHg. Adding active and passive expiration maneuvers did not improve PaCO2 prediction. During NIV delivered for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, measuring EtCO2 using a dedicating naso-buccal sensor was inaccurate to predict both PaCO2 and PaCO2 variations over time. Active and passive expiration maneuvers did not improve PaCO2 prediction. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01489150.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Master 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 2 6%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 9 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 10 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 February 2015.
All research outputs
#13,426,281
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#705
of 1,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,536
of 357,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 357,813 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.