↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (Voluven) for perioperative volume replacement in children undergoing cardiac surgery: a propensity-matched analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Efficacy and safety of 6% hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.4 (Voluven) for perioperative volume replacement in children undergoing cardiac surgery: a propensity-matched analysis
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0830-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philippe Van der Linden, Melanie Dumoulin, Celine Van Lerberghe, Cristel Sanchez Torres, Ariane Willems, David Faraoni

Abstract

Six percent hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.4 is considered an alternative to human albumin (HA) and crystalloids for volume replacement in children undergoing cardiac surgery. In this large propensity-matched analysis, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of replacing HA with HES for intraoperative volume therapy in children undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). We retrospectively reviewed our database, including children who underwent cardiac surgery between January 2002 and December 2010. Four percent HA was used until 2005; it was replaced by HES thereafter. Demographic data, intra- and postoperative blood loss and blood component transfusions were recorded, together with the incidence of postoperative complications and mortality. We performed a propensity-matched analysis using 13 possible confounding factors to compare children who received either HES or HA intraoperatively. The primary objectives included the effects of both fluids on intraoperative fluid balance (difference between fluids in and fluids out (efficacy)) and blood loss and exposure to allogeneic blood products (safety). Secondary safety outcomes were mortality and the incidence of postoperative renal dysfunction. Of 1,832 children reviewed, 1,495 were included in the analysis. Intraoperative use of HES was associated with a less positive fluid balance. Perioperative blood loss, volume of red blood cells and fresh frozen plasma administered, as well as the number of children who received transfusions, were also significantly lower in the HES group. No difference was observed regarding the incidence of postoperative renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy or of morbidity and mortality. These results confirm that the use of HES for volume replacement in children during cardiac surgery with CPB is as safe as HA. In addition, its use might be associated with less fluid accumulation. Further large studies are needed to assess whether the reduction in fluid accumulation could have a significant impact on postoperative morbidity and mortality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Other 9 18%
Student > Master 5 10%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 53%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 26 March 2015.
All research outputs
#6,929,388
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,866
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,487
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#333
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 395,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.