↓ Skip to main content

Impedance cardiography (electrical velocimetry) and transthoracic echocardiography for non-invasive cardiac output monitoring in pediatric intensive care patients: a prospective single-center…

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
Impedance cardiography (electrical velocimetry) and transthoracic echocardiography for non-invasive cardiac output monitoring in pediatric intensive care patients: a prospective single-center observational study
Published in
Critical Care, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0603-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Ernst Blohm, Denise Obrecht, Jana Hartwich, Goetz Christoph Mueller, Jan Felix Kersten, Jochen Weil, Dominique Singer

Abstract

IntroductionElectrical velocimetry (EV) is a type of impedance cardiography, and is a non-invasive and continuously applicable method of cardiac output monitoring. Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is non-invasive but discontinuous.MethodsWe compared EV with TTE in pediatric intensive care patients in a prospective single-center observational study. Simultaneous, coupled, left ventricular stroke volume measurements were performed by EV using an Aesculon® monitor and TTE (either via trans-aortic valve flow velocity time integral [EVVTI], or via M-mode [EVMM]). H0: bias was less than 10% and the mean percentage error (MPE) was less than 30% in Bland¿Altman analysis between EV and TTE. If appropriate, data were logarithmically transformed prior to Bland¿Altman analysis.ResultsA total of 72 patients (age: 2 days to 17 years; weight: 0.8 to 86 kg) were analyzed. Patients were divided into subgroups: organ transplantation (OTX, n =28), sepsis or organ failure (SEPSIS, n =16), neurological patients (NEURO, n =9), and preterm infants (PREM, n =26); Bias/MPE for EVVTI was 7.81%/26.16%. In the EVVTI subgroup analysis for OTX, NEURO, and SEPSIS, bias and MPE were within the limits of H0, whereas the PREM subgroup had a bias/MPE of 39.00%/46.27%. Bias/MPE for EVMM was 8.07%/37.26% where the OTX and NEURO subgroups were within the range of H0, but the PREM and SEPSIS subgroups were outside the range. Mechanical ventilation, non-invasive continuous positive airway pressure ventilation, body weight, and secondary abdominal closure were factors that significantly affected comparison of the methods.ConclusionsThis study shows that EV is comparable with aortic flow-based TTE for pediatric patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 109 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Student > Master 8 7%
Other 32 29%
Unknown 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 34 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 26 November 2014.
All research outputs
#8,261,756
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,316
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,692
of 369,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#102
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 369,967 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.