| Title |
Actual performance of mechanical ventilators in ICU: a multicentric quality control study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s35864 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leonardo Govoni, Raffaele L Dellaca’, Oscar Peñuelas, Giacomo Bellani, Antonio Artigas, Miquel Ferrer, Daniel Navajas, Antonio Pedotti, Ramon Farré |
| Abstract |
Even if the performance of a given ventilator has been evaluated in the laboratory under very well controlled conditions, inappropriate maintenance and lack of long-term stability and accuracy of the ventilator sensors may lead to ventilation errors in actual clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the actual performances of ventilators during clinical routines. A resistance (7.69 cmH(2)O/L/s) - elastance (100 mL/cmH(2)O) test lung equipped with pressure, flow, and oxygen concentration sensors was connected to the Y-piece of all the mechanical ventilators available for patients in four intensive care units (ICUs; n = 66). Ventilators were set to volume-controlled ventilation with tidal volume = 600 mL, respiratory rate = 20 breaths/minute, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) = 8 cmH(2)O, and oxygen fraction = 0.5. The signals from the sensors were recorded to compute the ventilation parameters. The average ± standard deviation and range (min-max) of the ventilatory parameters were the following: inspired tidal volume = 607 ± 36 (530-723) mL, expired tidal volume = 608 ± 36 (530-728) mL, peak pressure = 20.8 ± 2.3 (17.2-25.9) cmH(2)O, respiratory rate = 20.09 ± 0.35 (19.5-21.6) breaths/minute, PEEP = 8.43 ± 0.57 (7.26-10.8) cmH(2)O, oxygen fraction = 0.49 ± 0.014 (0.41-0.53). The more error-prone parameters were the ones related to the measure of flow. In several cases, the actual delivered mechanical ventilation was considerably different from the set one, suggesting the need for improving quality control procedures for these machines. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 13 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 26% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
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 20 December 2012.
All research outputs
#20,823,121
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#231
of 303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,375
of 286,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 286,730 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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