↓ Skip to main content

Clinical utility of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for acute respiratory failure in patients with hematological disease

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Clinical utility of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for acute respiratory failure in patients with hematological disease
Published in
SpringerPlus, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2161-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kaito Harada, Shuhei Kurosawa, Yutaro Hino, Keita Yamamoto, Masahiro Sakaguchi, Shuntaro Ikegawa, Keiichro Hattori, Aiko Igarashi, Kyoko Watakabe, Yasushi Senoo, Yuho Najima, Takeshi Hagino, Noriko Doki, Takeshi Kobayashi, Kazuhiko Kakihana, Toshihiro Iino, Hisashi Sakamaki, Kazuteru Ohashi

Abstract

A high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a newly developed device that enables high-flow oxygen therapy for patients with serious cardiopulmonary problems, but there are few data regarding its use in patients with hematological disease. The efficacy and tolerability of HFNCs for patients who developed ARF during the treatment of various hematological diseases was evaluated. Fifty-six patients underwent HFNC therapy during the last 2 years, and the causes of ARF were mainly pneumonia (n = 37) or acute congestive heart failure (n = 7). Only 11 patients (20 %) showed a good response to HFNC therapy, and remaining 45 patients (80 %) failed to respond to the initial HFNC therapy and, therefore, underwent second-line therapy including endotracheal intubation with mechanical ventilation (n = 15), non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (n = 1), or narcotic palliation alone (n = 29). Thus, HFNC appear not to be a viable treatment option in 4 out of 5 patients in this cohort of patients with hematological disease, but it was well tolerated in most patients (96 %); no major complications except for nasal soreness (n = 2) were observed. Multivariate analysis showed that the cause of ARF (pneumonia, odds ratio 11.2, 95 % CI 1.76-71.5, p = 0.01) was the only risk factor for treatment failure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 16%
Student > Postgraduate 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Computer Science 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 16 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#7,783,372
of 24,353,295 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#469
of 1,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,683
of 303,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#47
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,353,295 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,859 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 303,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.