↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous immunoglobulin fails to improve ARDS in patients undergoing ECMO therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Intravenous immunoglobulin fails to improve ARDS in patients undergoing ECMO therapy
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40560-018-0278-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefanie Prohaska, Andrea Schirner, Albina Bashota, Andreas Körner, Gunnar Blumenstock, Helene A. Haeberle

Abstract

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is associated with high mortality rates. ARDS patients suffer from severe hypoxemia, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) therapy may be necessary to ensure oxygenation. ARDS has various etiologies, including trauma, ischemia-reperfusion injury or infections of various origins, and the associated immunological responses may vary. To support the immunological response in this patient collective, we used intravenous IgM immunoglobulin therapy to enhance the likelihood of pulmonary recovery. ARDS patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) who were placed on ECMO and treated with (IVIG group;n = 29) or without (control group;n = 28) intravenous IgM-enriched immunoglobulins for 3 days in the initial stages of ARDS were analyzed retrospectively. The baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups, although the IVIG group showed a significantly reduced oxygenation index compared to the control group. We found no differences in the length of ICU stay or ventilation parameters. We did not find a significant difference between the groups for the extent of inflammation or for overall survival. We conclude that administration of IgM-enriched immunoglobulins as an additional therapy did not have a beneficial effect in patients with severe ARDS requiring ECMO support. Clinical Trials: NCT02961166; retrospectively registered.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Other 3 10%
Lecturer 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 41%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 24%

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 22 March 2018.
All research outputs
#11,294,930
of 12,695,728 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#255
of 278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,387
of 273,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,695,728 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 278 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 273,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them