↓ Skip to main content

Low-dose immunoglobulin G is not associated with mortality in patients with sepsis and septic shock

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Low-dose immunoglobulin G is not associated with mortality in patients with sepsis and septic shock
Published in
Critical Care, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1764-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yusuke Iizuka, Masamitsu Sanui, Yusuke Sasabuchi, Alan Kawarai Lefor, Mineji Hayakawa, Shinjiro Saito, Shigehiko Uchino, Kazuma Yamakawa, Daisuke Kudo, Kohei Takimoto, Toshihiko Mayumi, Takeo Azuhata, Fumihito Ito, Shodai Yoshihiro, Katsura Hayakawa, Tsuyoshi Nakashima, Takayuki Ogura, Eiichiro Noda, Yoshihiko Nakamura, Ryosuke Sekine, Yoshiaki Yoshikawa, Motohiro Sekino, Keiko Ueno, Yuko Okuda, Masayuki Watanabe, Akihito Tampo, Nobuyuki Saito, Yuya Kitai, Hiroki Takahashi, Iwao Kobayashi, Yutaka Kondo, Wataru Matsunaga, Sho Nachi, Toru Miike, Hiroshi Takahashi, Shuhei Takauji, Kensuke Umakoshi, Takafumi Todaka, Hiroshi Kodaira, Kohkichi Andoh, Takehiko Kasai, Yoshiaki Iwashita, Hideaki Arai, Masato Murata, Masahiro Yamane, Kazuhiro Shiga, Naoto Hori

Abstract

The administration of low-dose intravenous immunoglobulin G (IVIgG) (5 g/day for 3 days; approximate total 0.3 g/kg) is widely used as an adjunctive treatment for patients with sepsis in Japan, but its efficacy in the reduction of mortality has not been evaluated. We investigated whether the administration of low-dose IVIgG is associated with clinically important outcomes including intensive care unit (ICU) and in-hospital mortality. This is a post-hoc subgroup analysis of data from a retrospective cohort study, the Japan Septic Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (JSEPTIC DIC) study. The JSEPTIC DIC study was conducted in 42 ICUs in 40 institutions throughout Japan, and it investigated associations between sepsis-related coagulopathy, anticoagulation therapies, and clinical outcomes of 3195 adult patients with sepsis and septic shock admitted to ICUs from January 2011 through December 2013. To investigate associations between low-dose IVIgG administration and mortalities, propensity score-based matching analysis was used. IVIgG was administered to 960 patients (30.8%). Patients who received IVIgG were more severely ill than those who did not (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score 24.2 ± 8.8 vs 22.6 ± 8.7, p < 0.001). They had higher ICU mortality (22.8% vs 17.4%, p < 0.001), but similar in-hospital mortality (34.4% vs 31.0%, p = 0.066). In propensity score-matched analysis, 653 pairs were created. Both ICU mortality and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups (21.0% vs 18.1%, p = 0.185, and 32.9% vs 28.6%, p = 0.093, respectively) using generalized estimating equations fitted with logistic regression models adjusted for other therapeutic interventions. The administration of IVIgG was not associated with ICU or in-hospital mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.883; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.655-1.192, p = 0.417, and OR 0.957, 95% CI, 0.724-1.265, p = 0.758, respectively). In this analysis of a large cohort of patients with sepsis and septic shock, the administration of low-dose IVIgG as an adjunctive therapy was not associated with a decrease in ICU or in-hospital mortality. University Hospital Medical Information Network Individual Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN-CTR000012543 . Registered on 10 December 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 21%
Other 11 15%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 58%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 16 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 16 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,920,466
of 23,509,253 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,817
of 6,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,170
of 313,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#78
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,180 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 313,442 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.