| Title |
Efficacy and safety of recruitment maneuvers in acute respiratory distress syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, April 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2110-5820-1-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claude Guerin, Sophie Debord, Véronique Leray, Bertrand Delannoy, Frédérique Bayle, Gael Bourdin, Jean-Christophe Richard |
| Abstract |
Recruitment maneuvers (RM) consist of a ventilatory strategy that increases the transpulmonary pressure transiently to reopen the recruitable lung units in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The rationales to use RM in ARDS are that there is a massive loss of aerated lung and that once the end-inspiratory pressure surpasses the regional critical opening pressure of the lung units, those units are likely to reopen. There are different methods to perform RM when using the conventional ICU ventilator. The three RM methods that are mostly used and investigated are sighs, sustained inflation, and extended sigh. There is no standardization of any of the above RM. Meta-analysis recommended not to use RM in routine in stable ARDS patients but to run them in case of life-threatening hypoxemia. There are some concerns regarding the safety of RM in terms of hemodynamics preservation and lung injury as well. The rapid rising in pressure can be a factor that explains the potential harmful effects of the RM. In this review, we describe the balance between the beneficial effects and the harmful consequences of RM. Recent animal studies are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 14% |
| Mexico | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 159 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 23 | 14% |
| Other | 20 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 16 | 10% |
| Other | 46 | 28% |
| Unknown | 16 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 126 | 77% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 4% |
| Engineering | 7 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 20 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 April 2014.
All research outputs
#2,239,621
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#267
of 1,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,101
of 109,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. 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 109,046 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 69% of its contemporaries.