↓ Skip to main content

The 30-year evolution of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV)

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#42 of 499)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
24 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
Title
The 30-year evolution of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV)
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40635-016-0085-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sumeet V. Jain, Michaela Kollisch-Singule, Benjamin Sadowitz, Luke Dombert, Josh Satalin, Penny Andrews, Louis A. Gatto, Gary F. Nieman, Nader M. Habashi

Abstract

Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) was first described in 1987 and defined as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with a brief release while allowing the patient to spontaneously breathe throughout the respiratory cycle. The current understanding of the optimal strategy to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury is to "open the lung and keep it open". APRV should be ideal for this strategy with the prolonged CPAP duration recruiting the lung and the minimal release duration preventing lung collapse. However, APRV is inconsistently defined with significant variation in the settings used in experimental studies and in clinical practice. The goal of this review was to analyze the published literature and determine APRV efficacy as a lung-protective strategy. We reviewed all original articles in which the authors stated that APRV was used. The primary analysis was to correlate APRV settings with physiologic and clinical outcomes. Results showed that there was tremendous variation in settings that were all defined as APRV, particularly CPAP and release phase duration and the parameters used to guide these settings. Thus, it was impossible to assess efficacy of a single strategy since almost none of the APRV settings were identical. Therefore, we divided all APRV studies divided into two basic categories: (1) fixed-setting APRV (F-APRV) in which the release phase is set and left constant; and (2) personalized-APRV (P-APRV) in which the release phase is set based on changes in lung mechanics using the slope of the expiratory flow curve. Results showed that in no study was there a statistically significant worse outcome with APRV, regardless of the settings (F-ARPV or P-APRV). Multiple studies demonstrated that P-APRV stabilizes alveoli and reduces the incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in clinically relevant animal models and in trauma patients. In conclusion, over the 30 years since the mode's inception there have been no strict criteria in defining a mechanical breath as being APRV. P-APRV has shown great promise as a highly lung-protective ventilation strategy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Mexico 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 162 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 30 18%
Student > Postgraduate 21 13%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Other 43 26%
Unknown 23 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 119 71%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Environmental Science 2 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 31 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 27 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,693,417
of 24,490,209 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#42
of 499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,204
of 339,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,490,209 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 339,852 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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