↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Ventilatory Modes on the Breathing Variability in Mechanically Ventilated Infants

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of Ventilatory Modes on the Breathing Variability in Mechanically Ventilated Infants
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fped.2014.00132
Pubmed ID
Authors

Florent Baudin, Hau-Tieng Wu, Alice Bordessoule, Jennifer Beck, Philippe Jouvet, Martin G. Frasch, Guillaume Emeriaud

Abstract

Reduction of breathing variability is associated with adverse outcome. During mechanical ventilation, the variability of ventilatory pressure is dependent on the ventilatory mode. During neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA), the support is proportional to electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi), which reflects the respiratory center output. The variability of EAdi is, therefore, translated into a similar variability in pressures. Contrastingly, conventional ventilatory modes deliver less variable pressures. The impact of the mode on the patient's own respiratory drive is less clear. This study aims to compare the impact of NAVA, pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV), and pressure support ventilation (PSV) on the respiratory drive patterns in infants. We hypothesized that on NAVA, EAdi variability resembles most of the endogenous respiratory drive pattern seen in a control group.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 30 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Other 8 25%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 50%
Engineering 5 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 4 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 November 2014.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#5,118
of 7,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#315,652
of 369,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#27
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,807 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 369,553 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.