1,720,974 research outputs found
Commonly applied positive end-expiratory pressures do not prevent functional residual capacity decline in the setting of intra-abdominal hypertension: a pig model
Introduction
Intra-abdominal hypertension is common in critically ill patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The optimal ventilation strategy remains unclear in these patients. We examined the effect of positive end-expiratory pressures (PEEP) on functional residual capacity (FRC) and oxygen delivery in a pig model of intra-abdominal hypertension.
Methods
Thirteen adult pigs received standardised anaesthesia and ventilation. We randomised three levels of intra-abdominal pressure (3 mmHg (baseline), 18 mmHg, and 26 mmHg) and four commonly applied levels of PEEP (5, 8, 12 and 15 cmH2O). Intra-abdominal pressures were generated by inflating an intra-abdominal balloon. We measured intra-abdominal (bladder) pressure, functional residual capacity, cardiac output, haemoglobin and oxygen saturation, and calculated oxygen delivery.
Results
Raised intra-abdominal pressure decreased FRC but did not change cardiac output. PEEP increased FRC at baseline intra-abdominal pressure. The decline in FRC with raised intra-abdominal pressure was partly reversed by PEEP at 18 mmHg intra-abdominal pressure and not at all at 26 mmHg intra-abdominal pressure. PEEP significantly decreased cardiac output and oxygen delivery at baseline and at 26 mmHg intra-abdominal pressure but not at 18 mmHg intra-abdominal pressure.
Conclusions
In a pig model of intra-abdominal hypertension, PEEP up to 15 cmH2O did not prevent the FRC decline caused by intra-abdominal hypertension and was associated with reduced oxygen delivery as a consequence of reduced cardiac output. This implies that PEEP levels inferior to the corresponding intra-abdominal pressures cannot be recommended to prevent FRC decline in the setting of intra-abdominal hypertension
The polycompartment syndrome: a concise state-of-the-art review
A compartment syndrome is defined as an increase in the compartmental pressure to such an extent that the viability of the tissues and organs within the compartment are threatened. The term describes a syndrome and not a disease, and as such there are many diseases and underlying pathophysiological processes that may lead to such a scenario. The aim of this review is to give a state-of-the-art overview on the current knowledge on different compartment syndromes and how they may interact. Suggested definitions are included. There are four major compartments in the human body: the head, chest, abdomen, and the extremities. Initially, the term multicompartment syndrome was suggested when more than one compartment was affected. But this led to confusion as the term multi- or multiple compartment syndromes is mostly used in relation to multiple limb trauma leading to compartment syndrome requiring fasciotomy. Only recently was the term ‘polycompartment syndrome’ coined to describe a condition where two or more anatomical compartments have elevated pressures. When more than one compartment is affected, an exponential detrimental effect on end-organ function to both immediate and distant organs can occur. Within each compartment, the disease leading towards a compartment syndrome can be primary or secondary. The compliance of each compartment is the key to determining the transmission of a given compartmental pressure from one compartment to another. The intra-abdominal pressure helps to explain the severe pathophysiological condition occurring in patients with cardiorenal, hepatopulmonary and hepatorenal syndromes. Initial treatment of a compartment syndrome should be focused on the primary compartment and is based on three principles: lowering of compartmental pressure, supporting organ perfusion, and optimisation and prevention of specific adverse events. Clinicians need to be aware of the existence of the polycompartment syndrome and the interactions of increased compartmental pressures between compartment
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
We provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
We conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
