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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Dynamic arterial elastance as a predictor of arterial pressure response to fluid administration: a validation study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-014-0626-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Manuel Ignacio Monge García, Manuel Gracia Romero, Anselmo Gil Cano, Hollmann D Aya, Andrew Rhodes, Robert Michael Grounds, Maurizio Cecconi |
| Abstract |
IntroductionFunctional assessment of arterial load by dynamic arterial elastance (Eadyn), defined as the ratio between pulse-pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV), has recently been shown to predict the arterial pressure response to volume expansion (VE) in hypotensive preload-dependent patients. However, since both SVV and PPV were obtained from pulse-pressure analysis, a mathematical coupling factor could not be excluded. We therefore designed this study to confirm whether Eadyn, obtained from two independent signals, allows the prediction of arterial pressure response to VE in fluid-responsive patients.MethodsWe analyzed the response of arterial pressure to an intravenous infusion of 500 ml of normal saline in 53 mechanically ventilated patients with acute circulatory failure and preserved preload-dependence. Eadyn was calculated as the simultaneous ratio between PPV (obtained from an arterial line) and SVV (from an esophageal Doppler). A total of 80 fluid challenges were performed (median 1.5 per patient; IQR: 1 to 2). Patients were classified according to the increase in mean arterial pressure (MAP) after fluid administration in pressure-responders (¿10%) and non-responders.ResultsThirty-three fluid challenges (41.2%) significantly increased MAP. At baseline, Eadyn was higher in pressure-responders (1.04¿±¿0.28 versus 0.60¿±¿0.14; P <0.0001). Preinfusion Eadyn was related to changes in MAP after fluid administration (R2¿=¿0.60; P <0.0001). At baseline, Eadyn predicted the arterial pressure increase to VE (area under the ROC curve =0.94; 95%CI: 0.86 to 0.98; P <0.0001). A preinfusion Eadyn value ¿0.73 (grey zone: 0.72 to 0.88) discriminated pressure-responder patients with a sensitivity of 90.9% (95%CI: 75.6 to 98.1%) and a specificity of 91.5% (95%CI: 79.6 to 97.6%).ConclusionsFunctional assessment of arterial load by Eadyn, obtained from two independent signals, enabled the prediction of arterial pressure response to fluid administration in mechanically ventilated, preload-dependent patients with acute circulatory failure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 4 | 18% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 9% |
| Spain | 2 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 9% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 5% |
| Brazil | 1 | 5% |
| France | 1 | 5% |
| India | 1 | 5% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 59% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 23% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 9% |
| Scientists | 2 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 133 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 23 | 17% |
| Researcher | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 24% |
| Unknown | 20 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 99 | 73% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 2% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 3% |
| Unknown | 20 | 15% |
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 02 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,961,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,478
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,505
of 369,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#38
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 369,967 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 89% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.