↓ Skip to main content

Chloral hydrate enteral infusion for sedation in ventilated children: the CHOSEN pilot study

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

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Chloral hydrate enteral infusion for sedation in ventilated children: the CHOSEN pilot study
Published in
Critical Care, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1879-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ari R. Joffe, Jessica Hogan, Cathy Sheppard, Gerda Tawfik, Jonathan P. Duff, Gonzalo Garcia Guerra

Abstract

We aimed to test a novel method of delivery of chloral hydrate (CH) sedation in ventilated critically ill young children. Children < 12 years old, within 72 hours of admission, who were ventilated, receiving enteral tube-feeds, with intermittent CH ordered were enrolled after signed consent. Patients received a CH loading-dose of 10 mg/kg enterally, then a syringe-pump enteral infusion at 5 mg/kg/hour, increasing to a maximum of 9 mg/kg/hour. Cases were compared to historical controls matched for age group and Pediatric Risk of Mortality score (PRISM) category, using Fisher's exact test and the t test. The primary outcome was feasibility, defined as the use of an enteral CH continuous infusion without discontinuation attributable to a pre-specified potential harm. There were 21 patients enrolled, at age 11.4 (12.1) months, with bronchiolitis in 10 (48%), a mean Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD) score of 6.2 (5.2), and having received enteral CH continuous infusion for 4.5 (2.2) days. Infusion of CH was feasible in 20/21 (95%; 95% CI 76-99%) patients, with one (5%) adverse event of duodenal ulcer perforation on day 3 in a patient with croup receiving regular ibuprofen and dexamethasone. The CH infusion dose (mg/kg/h) on day 2 (n = 20) was 8.9 (IQR 5.9, 9), and on day 4 (n = 11) was 8.8 (IQR 7, 9). Days to titration of adequate sedation (defined as ≤ 3 PRN doses/shift) was 1 (IQR 0.5, 2.5), and hours to awakening for extubation was 5 (IQR 2, 9). Cases (versus controls) had less positive fluid balance at 48 h (-2 (45) vs. 26 (46) ml/kg, p = 0.051), and a decrease in number of PRN sedation doses from 12 h pre to 12 hours post starting CH (4.7 (3.3) to 2.6 (2.8), p = 0.009 versus 2.9 (3.9) to 3.4 (5), p = 0.74). There were no statistically significant differences between cases and controls in inotrope scores, signs or treatment of withdrawal, or PICU days. Delivering CH by continuous enteral infusion is feasible, effective, and may be associated with less positive fluid balance. Whether there is a risk of duodenal perforation requires further study.

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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Researcher 7 13%
Other 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 29 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,294,544
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,020
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,771
of 446,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#50
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 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 446,925 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 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.