↓ Skip to main content

Clinical characteristics, sepsis interventions and outcomes in the obese patients with septic shock: an international multicenter cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
160 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 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
Clinical characteristics, sepsis interventions and outcomes in the obese patients with septic shock: an international multicenter cohort study
Published in
Critical Care, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12680
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yaseen M Arabi, Saqib I Dara, Hani M Tamim, Asgar H Rishu, Abderrezak Bouchama, Mohammad K Khedr, Daniel Feinstein, Joseph E Parrillo, Kenneth E Wood, Sean P Keenan, Sergio Zanotti, Greg Martinka, Aseem Kumar, Anand Kumar, The Cooperative Antimicrobial Therapy of Septic Shock (CATSS) Database Research Group

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Data are sparse as to whether obesity influences the risk of death in critically ill patients with septic shock. We sought to examine the possible impact of obesity, as assessed by body mass index (BMI), on hospital mortality in septic shock patients. METHODS: We performed a nested cohort study within a retrospective database of patients with septic shock conducted in 28 medical centers in Canada, United States and Saudi Arabia between 1996 and 2008. Patients were classified according to the World Health Organization criteria for BMI. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between obesity and hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of the 8,670 patients with septic shock, 2,882 (33.2%) had height and weight data recorded at ICU admission and constituted the study group. Obese patients were more likely to have skin and soft tissue infections and less likely to have pneumonia with predominantly Gram-positive microorganisms. Crystalloid and colloid resuscitation fluids in the first six hours were given at significantly lower volumes per kg in the obese and very obese patients compared to underweight and normal weight patients (for crystalloids: 55.0 ± 40.1 ml/kg for underweight, 43.2 ± 33.4 for normal BMI, 37.1 ± 30.8 for obese and 27.7 ± 22.0 for very obese). Antimicrobial doses per kg were also different among BMI groups. Crude analysis showed that obese and very obese patients had lower hospital mortality compared to normal weight patients (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.97 for obese and OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.85 for very obese patients). After adjusting for baseline characteristics and sepsis interventions, the association became non-significant (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.02 for obese and OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.04 for very obese). CONCLUSIONS: The obesity paradox (lower mortality in the obese) documented in other populations is also observed in septic shock. This may be related in part to differences in patient characteristics. However, the true paradox may lie in the variations in the sepsis interventions, such as the administration of resuscitation fluids and antimicrobial therapy. Considering the obesity epidemic and its impact on critical care, further studies are warranted to examine whether a weight-based approach to common therapeutic interventions in septic shock influences outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 160 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Master 15 9%
Other 41 25%
Unknown 36 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 44 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 06 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,824,429
of 25,602,335 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,424
of 6,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,086
of 210,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#24
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,602,335 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,587 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 210,137 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.