↓ Skip to main content

A randomized controlled trial on the effects of goal-directed therapy on the inflammatory response open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
A randomized controlled trial on the effects of goal-directed therapy on the inflammatory response open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0974-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Duane J. Funk, Kent T. HayGlass, Joshua Koulack, Greg Harding, April Boyd, Ryan Brinkman

Abstract

Goal directed therapy (GDT) has been shown in numerous studies to decrease perioperative morbidity and morality. The mechanism of benefit of GDT however, has not been clearly elucidated. Targeted resuscitation of the vascular endothelium with GDT might alter the postoperative inflammatory response and be responsible for the decreased complications with this therapy. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01681251 . Forty patients undergoing elective open repair of their abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), 18 years of age and older were randomized to an interventional arm with GDT targeting stroke volume variation (SVV) with an arterial pulse contour cardiac output monitor, or control, where fluid therapy was administered at the discretion of the attending anesthesiologist. We measured levels of several inflammatory cytokines (C-reactive protein, Pentraxin 3, ST-2, Il-1Ra, and TNFR-III) preoperatively and at several postoperative time points to determine if there was a difference in inflammatory response. We also assessed each group for a composite of postoperative complications. Twenty patients were randomized to GDT and twenty were randomized to control. Length of stay was not different between groups. Intervention patients received less crystalloid and more colloid. At the end of the case, intervention patients had a higher cardiac index (3.4 ± 0.5 vs. 2.5 ± 0.7 L/min/M(2), p < 0.01) and stroke volume index (50.1 ± 7.4 vs. 38.1 ± 9.8 ml/M(2), p < 0.01) than controls. There were significantly fewer complications in the intervention vs. control group (28 vs. 12, p = 0.02). The length of hospital and ICU stay did not differ between groups. There was no difference in the levels of inflammatory cytokines between groups. Despite being associated with fewer complications and improved hemodynamics, there was no difference in the inflammatory response of patients treated with GDT. This suggests that the clinical benefit of GDT occurs in spite of a similar inflammatory burden. Further work needs to be performed to delineate the mechanism of benefit of GDT. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01681251 . Registered on May 18, 2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 18%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Master 14 11%
Other 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 28 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 <1%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 37 29%
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 11 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,739,010
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,130
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,661
of 395,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#428
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 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 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.