↓ Skip to main content

Hyperfibrinolysis in severe isolated traumatic brain injury may occur without tissue hypoperfusion: a retrospective observational multicentre study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2017
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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Hyperfibrinolysis in severe isolated traumatic brain injury may occur without tissue hypoperfusion: a retrospective observational multicentre study
Published in
Critical Care, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1811-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mineji Hayakawa, Kunihiko Maekawa, Shigeki Kushimoto, Hiroshi Kato, Junichi Sasaki, Hiroshi Ogura, Tetsuya Matsuoka, Toshifumi Uejima, Naoto Morimura, Hiroyasu Ishikura, Akiyoshi Hagiwara, Munekazu Takeda, Naoyuki Kaneko, Daizoh Saitoh, Daisuke Kudo, Takashi Kanemura, Takayuki Shibusawa, Shintaro Furugori, Yoshihiko Nakamura, Atsushi Shiraishi, Kiyoshi Murata, Gou Mayama, Arino Yaguchi, Shiei Kim, Osamu Takasu, Kazutaka Nishiyama

Abstract

Hyperfibrinolysis is a critical complication in severe trauma. Hyperfibrinolysis is traditionally diagnosed via elevated D-dimer or fibrin/fibrinogen degradation product levels, and recently, using thromboelastometry. Although hyperfibrinolysis is observed in patients with severe isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI) on arrival at the emergency department (ED), it is unclear which factors induce hyperfibrinolysis. The present study aimed to investigate the factors associated with hyperfibrinolysis in patients with isolated severe TBI. We conducted a multicentre retrospective review of data for adult trauma patients with an injury severity score ≥ 16, and selected patients with isolated TBI (TBI group) and extra-cranial trauma (non-TBI group). The TBI group included patients with an abbreviated injury score (AIS) for the head ≥ 4 and an extra-cranial AIS < 2. The non-TBI group included patients with an extra-cranial AIS ≥ 3 and head AIS < 2. Hyperfibrinolysis was defined as a D-dimer level ≥ 38 mg/L on arrival at the ED. We evaluated the relationships between hyperfibrinolysis and injury severity/tissue injury/tissue perfusion in TBI patients by comparing them with non-TBI patients. We enrolled 111 patients in the TBI group and 126 in the non-TBI group. In both groups, patients with hyperfibrinolysis had more severe injuries and received transfusion more frequently than patients without hyperfibrinolysis. Tissue injury, evaluated on the basis of lactate dehydrogenase and creatine kinase levels, was associated with hyperfibrinolysis in both groups. Among patients with TBI, the mortality rate was higher in those with hyperfibrinolysis than in those without hyperfibrinolysis. Tissue hypoperfusion, evaluated on the basis of lactate level, was associated with hyperfibrinolysis in only the non-TBI group. Although the increase in lactate level was correlated with the deterioration of coagulofibrinolytic variables (prolonged prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time, decreased fibrinogen levels, and increased D-dimer levels) in the non-TBI group, no such correlation was observed in the TBI group. Hyperfibrinolysis is associated with tissue injury and trauma severity in TBI and non-TBI patients. However, tissue hypoperfusion is associated with hyperfibrinolysis in non-TBI patients, but not in TBI patients. Tissue hypoperfusion may not be a prerequisite for the occurrence of hyperfibrinolysis in patients with isolated TBI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Other 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 22 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 28 38%
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 30 August 2017.
All research outputs
#2,717,936
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,353
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,115
of 325,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#41
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 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 64% 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 325,032 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.