↓ Skip to main content

Citrate anticoagulation versus systemic heparinisation in continuous venovenous hemofiltration in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a multi-center randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2014
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 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
Citrate anticoagulation versus systemic heparinisation in continuous venovenous hemofiltration in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a multi-center randomized clinical trial
Published in
Critical Care, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0472-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Schilder, S Azam Nurmohamed, Frank H Bosch, Ilse M Purmer, Sylvia S den Boer, Cynthia G Kleppe, Marc G Vervloet, Albertus Beishuizen, Armand RJ Girbes, Pieter M ter Wee, AB Johan Groeneveld

Abstract

IntroductionBecause of ongoing controversy, renal and vital outcomes are compared between systemically administered unfractionated heparin and regional anticoagulation with citrate-buffered replacement solution in predilution mode, during continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI).MethodsIn this multi-center randomized controlled trial, patients admitted to the intensive care unit requiring CVVH and meeting inclusion criteria, were randomly assigned to citrate or heparin. Primary endpoints were mortality and renal outcome in intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary endpoints were safety and efficacy. Safety was defined as absence of any adverse event necessitating discontinuation of the assigned anticoagulant. For efficacy, among other parameters, survival times of the first hemofilter were studied.ResultsOf the 139 patients enrolled, 66 were randomized to citrate and 73 to heparin. Mortality rates at 28 and 90 days did not differ between groups: 22/66 (33%) of citrate-treated patients died versus 25/72 (35%) of heparin-treated patients at 28 days, and 27/65 (42%) of citrate-treated patients died versus 29/69 (42%) of heparin-treated patients at 90 days (P¿=¿1.00 for both). Renal outcome, i.e. independency of renal replacement therapy 28 days after initiation of CVVH in surviving patients, did not differ between groups: 29/43 (67%) in the citrate-treated patients versus 33/47 (70%) in heparin-treated patients (P¿=¿0.82). Heparin was discontinued in 24/73 (33%) of patients whereas citrate was discontinued in 5/66 (8%) of patients (P¿<¿0.001). Filter survival times were superior for citrate (median 46 versus 32 hours, P¿=¿0.02), as were the number of filters used (P¿=¿0.002) and the off time within 72 hours (P¿=¿0.002). The costs during the first 72 hours of prescribed CVVH were lower in citrate-based CVVH.ConclusionsRenal outcome and patient mortality were similar for citrate and heparin anticoagulation during CVVH in the critically ill patient with AKI. However, citrate was superior in terms of safety, efficacy and costs.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00209378. Registered 13th September 2005.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 137 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 21 15%
Researcher 20 14%
Student > Master 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Other 37 26%
Unknown 17 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 23 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 19 March 2015.
All research outputs
#1,636,063
of 15,560,309 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,518
of 4,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,170
of 201,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#22
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,560,309 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 4,921 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 201,992 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.