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 |
Postconditioning in major vascular surgery: prevention of renal failure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-014-0379-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Aranyi, Zsolt Turoczi, David Garbaisz, Gabor Lotz, Janos Geleji, Viktor Hegedus, Zoltan Rakonczay, Zsolt Balla, Laszlo Harsanyi, Attila Szijarto |
| Abstract |
BackgroundPostconditioning is a novel reperfusion technique to reduce ischemia-reperfusion injuries. The aim of the study was to investigate this method in an animal model of lower limb revascularization for purpose of preventing postoperative renal failure.MethodsBilateral lower limb ischemia was induced in male Wistar rats for 3 hours by infrarenal aorta clamping under narcosis. Revascularization was allowed by declamping the aorta. Postconditioning (additional 10 sec reocclusion, 10 sec reperfusion in 6 cycles) was induced at the onset of revascularization. Myocyte injury and renal function changes were assessed 4, 24 and 72 hours postoperatively. Hemodynamic monitoring was performed by invasive arterial blood pressure registering and a kidney surface laser Doppler flowmeter.ResultsMuscle viability studies showed no significant improvement with the use of postconditioning in terms of ischemic rhabdomyolysis (4 h: ischemia-reperfusion (IR) group: 42.93¿±¿19.20% vs. postconditioned (PostC) group: 43.27¿±¿27.13%). At the same time, renal functional laboratory tests and kidney myoglobin immunohistochemistry demonstrated significantly less expressed kidney injury in postconditioned animals (renal failure index: 4 h: IR: 2.37¿±¿1.43 mM vs. PostC: 0.92¿±¿0.32 mM; 24 h: IR: 1.53¿±¿0.45 mM vs. PostC: 0.77¿±¿0.34 mM; 72 h: IR: 1.51¿±¿0.36 mM vs. PostC: 0.43¿±¿0.28 mM), while systemic hemodynamics and kidney microcirculation significantly improved (calculated reperfusion area: IR: 82.31¿±¿12.23% vs. PostC: 99.01¿±¿2.76%), and arterial blood gas analysis showed a lesser extent systemic acidic load after revascularization (a defined relative base excess parameter: 1st s: IR: 2.25¿±¿1.14 vs. PostC: 1.80¿±¿0.66; 2nd s: IR: 2.14¿±¿1.44 vs. PostC: 2.44¿±¿1.14, 3rd s: IR: 3.99¿±¿3.09 vs. PostC: 2.07¿±¿0.82; 4th s: IR: 3.28¿±¿0.32 vs. PostC: 2.05¿±¿0.56).ConclusionsThe results suggest a protective role for postconditioning in major vascular surgeries against renal complications through a possible alternative release of nephrotoxic agents and exerting a positive effect on hemodynamic stability. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 20% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 January 2015.
All research outputs
#15,316,177
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,233
of 3,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,898
of 352,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#65
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 352,883 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.