↓ Skip to main content

Echocardiography as a guide for fluid management

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
181 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
478 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Echocardiography as a guide for fluid management
Published in
Critical Care, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1407-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

John H. Boyd, Demetrios Sirounis, Julien Maizel, Michel Slama

Abstract

In critically ill patients at risk for organ failure, the administration of intravenous fluids has equal chances of resulting in benefit or harm. While the intent of intravenous fluid is to increase cardiac output and oxygen delivery, unwelcome results in those patients who do not increase their cardiac output are tissue edema, hypoxemia, and excess mortality. Here we briefly review bedside methods to assess fluid responsiveness, focusing upon the strengths and pitfalls of echocardiography in spontaneously breathing mechanically ventilated patients as a means to guide fluid management. We also provide new data to help clinicians anticipate bedside echocardiography findings in vasopressor-dependent, volume-resuscitated patients. To review bedside ultrasound as a method to judge whether additional intravenous fluid will increase cardiac output. Special emphasis is placed on the respiratory effort of the patient. Point-of-care echocardiography has the unique ability to screen for unexpected structural findings while providing a quantifiable probability of a patient's cardiovascular response to fluids. Measuring changes in stroke volume in response to either passive leg raising or changes in thoracic pressure during controlled mechanical ventilation offer good performance characteristics but may be limited by operator skill, arrhythmia, and open lung ventilation strategies. Measuring changes in vena caval diameter induced by controlled mechanical ventilation demands less training of the operator and performs well during arrythmia. In modern delivery of critical care, however, most patients are nursed awake, even during mechanical ventilation. In patients making respiratory efforts we suggest that ventilator settings must be standardized before assessing this promising technology as a guide for fluid management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 181 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 478 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 467 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 80 17%
Student > Postgraduate 69 14%
Researcher 60 13%
Student > Master 44 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 7%
Other 114 24%
Unknown 77 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 336 70%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 1%
Social Sciences 4 <1%
Engineering 4 <1%
Other 15 3%
Unknown 97 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 124. 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 07 February 2018.
All research outputs
#343,558
of 25,766,791 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#178
of 6,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,568
of 348,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#4
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,766,791 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 348,228 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.