↓ Skip to main content

Visual quality assessment of the liver graft by the transplanting surgeon predicts postreperfusion syndrome after liver transplantation: a retrospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Visual quality assessment of the liver graft by the transplanting surgeon predicts postreperfusion syndrome after liver transplantation: a retrospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12871-018-0493-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felix Kork, Alexandra Rimek, Anne Andert, Niklas Jurek Becker, Christoph Heidenhain, Ulf P. Neumann, Daniela Kroy, Anna B. Roehl, Rolf Rossaint, Marc Hein

Abstract

The discrepancy between demand and supply for liver transplants (LT) has led to an increased transplantation of organs from extended criteria donors (ECD). In this single center retrospective analysis of 122 cadaveric LT recipients, we investigated predictors of postreperfusion syndrome (PRS) including transplant liver quality categorized by both histological assessment of steatosis and subjective visual assessment by the transplanting surgeon using multivariable regression analysis. Furthermore, we describe the relevance of PRS during the intraoperative and postoperative course of LT recipients. 53.3% (n = 65) of the patients suffered from PRS. Risk factors for PRS were visually assessed organ quality of the liver grafts (acceptable: OR 12.2 [95% CI 2.43-61.59], P = 0.002; poor: OR 13.4 [95% CI 1.48-121.1], P = 0.02) as well as intraoperative norepinephrine dosage before reperfusion (OR 2.2 [95% CI 1.26-3.86] per 0.1 μg kg- 1 min- 1, P = 0.01). In contrast, histological assessment of the graft was not associated with PRS. LT recipients suffering from PRS were hemodynamically more instable after reperfusion compared to recipients not suffering from PRS. They had lower mean arterial pressures until the end of surgery (P < 0.001), received more epinephrine and norepinephrine before reperfusion (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively) as well as higher rates of continuous infusion of norepinephrine (P < 0.001) and vasopressin (P = 0.02) after reperfusion. Postoperative peak AST was significantly higher (P = 0.001) in LT recipients with PRS. LT recipients with intraoperative PRS had more postoperative adverse cardiac events (P = 0.05) and suffered more often from postoperative delirium (P = 0.04). Patients receiving ECD liver grafts are especially prone to PRS. Anesthesiologists should keep these newly described risk factors in mind when preparing for reperfusion in patients receiving high-risk organs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,102,908
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#471
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,502
of 334,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#16
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,574 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 334,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 50% of its contemporaries.