↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and bleeding risk of antithrombin supplementation in septic disseminated intravascular coagulation: a secondary survey

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Efficacy and bleeding risk of antithrombin supplementation in septic disseminated intravascular coagulation: a secondary survey
Published in
Critical Care, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0497-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toshiaki Iba, Daizoh Saitoh, Hideo Wada, Hidesaku Asakura

Abstract

IntroductionIn a previous report, we demonstrated a favorable trend for supplementation with antithrombin (AT) concentrate at a dosage of 3000 IU/day over 1500 IU/day for the treatment of sepsis-associated disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) in patients with an AT activity of 70% or less. Since the survival difference did not reach statistical significance, we planned to examine the effects in a larger number of cases with severer disease.MethodsWe performed a nonrandomized multi-institutional survey. A total of 307 septic DIC patients with AT activity less than 40% and who had undergone AT substitution at a dose of either 1500 IU/day or 3000 IU/day for three consecutive days were analyzed. Of these, 259 patients received 1500 IU/day (AT1500 group) and 48 patients received 3000 IU/day (AT3000 group). The primary efficacy endpoints were recovery from DIC by day 7 and an all-cause mortality on day 28. Adverse bleeding events were also examined. A logistic regression analysis was conducted using age, sex, body weight, initial AT activity, DIC score, platelet count, coadministration of heparin, recombinant thrombomodulin, suspected source of infection, surgery, and supplemented AT dose.ResultsSupplementation significantly decreased the DIC score in the AT3000 group, leading to the superior resolution of DIC, compared with the results in the AT1500 group (66.7% versus 45.2%, P = 0.007). In addition, the AT3000 group exhibited a better survival than the AT1500 group (77.1% versus 56.4%, P = 0.010). Bleeding events were observed in 6.96% (severe bleeding: 3.04%) in AT1500 group and 6.52% (severe bleeding, 4.35%) in AT3000 group (P = 1.000 (severe bleeding, P = 0.648)). A logistic regression analysis revealed that the use of AT3000 (odds ratio (OR), 2.419; P = 0.025), a higher initial platelet count (OR, 1.054; P = 0.027), and patient age (OR, 0.977; P = 0.045) were significantly correlated with an improved survival.ConclusionThe AT3000 group exhibited significantly improved rates of survival and recovery from DIC without an increased risk of bleeding, compared with the AT1500 group, among the patients with sepsis-associated DIC and an AT activity <40%.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 20%
Researcher 6 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 9 22%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,169,543
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,987
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,587
of 258,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#79
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 258,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.