↓ Skip to main content

Updates in the perioperative and emergency management of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Updates in the perioperative and emergency management of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0930-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Faraoni, Jerrold H Levy, Pierre Albaladejo, Charles-Marc Samama

Abstract

Perioperative management of patients treated with the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants is an ongoing challenge. Due to the lack of good clinical studies involving adequate monitoring and reversal therapies, management requires knowledge and understanding of pharmacokinetics, renal function, drug interactions, and evaluation of the surgical bleeding risk. Consideration of the benefit of reversal of anticoagulation is important and, for some low risk bleeding procedures, it may be in the patient's interest to continue anticoagulation. In case of major intra-operative bleeding in patients likely to have therapeutic or supra-therapeutic levels of anticoagulation, specific reversal agents/antidotes would be of value but are currently lacking. As a consequence, a multimodal approach should be taken which includes the administration of 25 to 50 U/kg 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates or 30 to 50 U/kg activated prothrombin complex concentrate (FEIBA®) in some life-threatening situations. Finally, further studies are needed to clarify the ideal therapeutic intervention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 116 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 24 20%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Postgraduate 15 12%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 27 22%
Unknown 19 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 69%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 20 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 29 June 2015.
All research outputs
#3,081,247
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,567
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,450
of 395,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#208
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 395,418 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 87% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.