↓ Skip to main content

Bench-to-bedside review: The initial hemodynamic resuscitation of the septic patient according to Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines – does one size fit all?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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
Bench-to-bedside review: The initial hemodynamic resuscitation of the septic patient according to Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines – does one size fit all?
Published in
Critical Care, January 2008
DOI 10.1186/cc6979
Pubmed ID
Authors

Azriel Perel

Abstract

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for the management of severe sepsis and septic shock recommend that the initial hemodynamic resuscitation be done according to the protocol used by Rivers and colleagues in their well-known early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) study. However, it may well be that their patients were much sicker on admission than many other septic patients. Compared with other populations of septic patients, the patients of Rivers and colleagues had a higher incidence of severe comorbidities, a more severe hemodynamic status on admission (excessively low central venous oxygen saturation [ScvO2], low central venous pressure [CVP], and high lactate), and higher mortality rates. Therefore, it may well be that these patients arrived to the hospital in late untreated hypovolemic sepsis, which may have been due, in part at least, to low socioeconomic status and reduced access to health care. The EGDT protocol uses target values for CVP and ScvO2 to guide hemodynamic management. However, filling pressures do not reliably predict the response to fluid administration, while the ScvO2 of septic patients is characteristically high due to decreased oxygen extraction. For all these reasons, it seems that the hemodynamic component of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines cannot be applied to all septic patients, particularly those who develop sepsis during their hospital stay.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 2%
United States 3 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 110 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 20%
Other 16 13%
Student > Postgraduate 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 10%
Other 37 30%
Unknown 6 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 85%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 5 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 November 2015.
All research outputs
#12,827,544
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,330
of 6,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,817
of 155,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#60
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 155,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.