↓ Skip to main content

Continuous central venous oxygen saturation assisted intraoperative hemodynamic management during major abdominal surgery: a randomized, controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Continuous central venous oxygen saturation assisted intraoperative hemodynamic management during major abdominal surgery: a randomized, controlled trial
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12871-015-0064-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

András Mikor, Domonkos Trásy, Márton F Németh, Angelika Osztroluczki, Szilvia Kocsi, Ildikó Kovács, Gábor Demeter, Zsolt Molnár

Abstract

Major abdominal surgery is associated with significant risk of morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period. Optimising intraoperative fluid administration may result in improved outcomes. Our aim was to compare the effects of central venous pressure (CVP), and central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2)-assisted fluid therapy on postoperative complications in patients undergoing high risk surgery. Patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery were randomised into control and ScvO2 groups. The target level of mean arterial pressure (MAP) was ≥ 60 mmHg in both groups. In cases of MAP < 60 mmHg patients received either a fluid or vasopressor bolus according to the CVP < 8 mmHg in the control group. In the ScvO2 group, in addition to the MAP, an ScvO2 of <75 % or a >3 % decrease indicated need for intervention, regardless of the actual MAP. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range). We observed a lower number of patients with complications in the ScvO2 group compared to the control group, however it did not reach statistical significance (ScvO2 group: 10 vs. 19; p = 0.07). Patients in the ScvO2 group (n = 38) received more colloids compared to the control group (n = 41) [279(161) vs. 107(250) ml/h; p < 0.001]. Both groups received similar amounts of crystalloid (1126 ± 471 vs. 1049 ± 431 ml/h; p = 0.46) and norepinephrine [37(107) vs. 18(73) mcg/h; p = 0.84]. Despite similar blood loss in both groups, the ScvO2 group received more blood transfusions (63 % vs. 37 %; p = 0.018). More patients in the control group had a postoperative PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg (23 vs. 10, p < 0.01). Twenty eight day survival was significantly higher in the ScvO2 group (37/38 vs. 33/41 p = 0.018). ScvO2-assisted intraoperative haemodynamic support provided some benefits, including significantly better postoperative oxygenation and 28 day survival rate, compared to CVP-assisted therapy without a significant effect on postoperative complications during major abdominal surgery. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02337010 .

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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 21%
Student > Master 12 16%
Other 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 18 24%
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 25 January 2023.
All research outputs
#6,810,363
of 25,059,640 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#258
of 1,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,792
of 272,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,059,640 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 1,682 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 272,541 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 72% of its contemporaries.