↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A randomized clinical trial of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus conventional weaning mode in patients with COPD and prolonged mechanical ventilation

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
A randomized clinical trial of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist versus conventional weaning mode in patients with COPD and prolonged mechanical ventilation
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/copd.s103213
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nai-Ying Kuo, Mei-Lien Tu, Tsai-Yi Hung, Shih-Feng Liu, Yu-Hsiu Chung, Meng-Chih Lin, Chao-Chien Wu

Abstract

Patient-ventilator asynchrony is a common problem in mechanically ventilated patients; the problem is especially obvious in COPD. Neutrally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) can improve patient-ventilator asynchrony; however, the effect in COPD patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation is still unknown. The goals of this study are to evaluate the effect of NAVA and conventional weaning mode in patients with COPD during prolonged mechanical ventilation. The study enrolled a total of 33 COPD patients with ventilator dependency for more than 21 days in the weaning center. A diaphragm electrical activity (Edi) catheter was inserted in patients within 24 hours after admission to the respiratory care center, and patients were randomly allocated to NAVA or conventional group. A spontaneous breathing trial was performed every 24 hours. The results correlated with the clinical parameters. There were significantly higher asynchrony incidence rates in the whole group after using Edi catheter (before vs post-Edi catheter insertion =60.6% vs 87.9%, P<0.001). Asynchrony index: before vs post-Edi catheter insertion =7.4%±8.5% vs 13.2%±13.5%, P<0.01. Asynchrony incidence: NAVA vs conventional =0% vs 84.2%, P<0.001. Asynchrony index: NAVA vs conventional =0 vs 11.9±11.2 (breath %), P<0.001. The most common asynchrony events were ineffective trigger and delayed trigger. Compared to conventional mode, NAVA mode can significantly enhance respiratory monitoring and improve patient-ventilator interaction in COPD patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation in respiratory care center.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Researcher 7 12%
Other 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 19%
Unspecified 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Unknown 20 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 May 2016.
All research outputs
#15,168,964
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,342
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,601
of 311,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#36
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 311,866 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.