↓ Skip to main content

The impact of hydroxyethyl starches in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
The impact of hydroxyethyl starches in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0656-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Jacob, Jean-Luc Fellahi, Daniel Chappell, Andrea Kurz

Abstract

IntroductionRecent studies in septic patients showed that adverse effects of hydroxyethyl starches (HES) possibly outweigh their benefits in severely impaired physiological haemostasis. It remains unclear whether this also applies to patient populations that are less vulnerable. In this meta-analysis we evaluated the impact of various HES generations in patients undergoing cardiac surgery on safety and efficacy endpoints.MethodsWe searched the databases PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane controlled trials register for randomised controlled trials (RCT) in English or German language comparing HES to any other colloid or crystalloid during open heart surgery.ResultsBlood loss and transfusion requirements were higher for older starches with mean molecular weights more than 200 kDa compared to other volume substitutes. In contrast, this effect was not observed with latest generation tetrastarches (130/0.4), which even performed better when compared to albumin (blood loss of tetrastarch versus albumin: standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.34; 95% CI -0.63, -0.05; P =0.02; versus gelatin -0.06; 95% CI -0.20, 0.08; P =0.39; versus crystalloids: -0,05; 95% CI -0.20, 0.10; P =0.54). Similar results were found for transfusion needs. Length of stay in the intensive care unit or hospital were significantly shorter with tetrastarches compared to gelatin (intensive care unit: SMD -0.10; 95% CI -0.15, -0.05; P =0.0002) and crystalloids (Hospital: SMD -0.52; 95% CI -0.90, -0.14; P =0.007).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis of RCTs could not identify safety issues with tetrastarches compared with other colloid or crystalloid solutions in terms of blood loss, transfusion requirements or hospital length of stay in cardiac surgery. The safety data on coagulation with older starches raises some issues that need to be addressed in future trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Other 10 15%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 19 28%
Unknown 11 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 66%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 11 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 24 February 2016.
All research outputs
#5,140,637
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,343
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,625
of 368,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#59
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th 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 is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 368,046 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.