↓ Skip to main content

Perioperative goal-directed therapy and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgery: a historical-prospective, comparative effectiveness study

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 (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Perioperative goal-directed therapy and postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgery: a historical-prospective, comparative effectiveness study
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0945-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maxime Cannesson, Davinder Ramsingh, Joseph Rinehart, Aram Demirjian, Trung Vu, Shermeen Vakharia, David Imagawa, Zhaoxia Yu, Sheldon Greenfield, Zeev Kain

Abstract

Perioperative Goal Directed Therapy (PGDT) may improve postoperative outcome in high-risk surgery patients but its adoption has been slow. In 2012, we initiated a performance improvement (PI) project focusing on the implementation of PGDT during high-risk abdominal surgeries. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention. This is a historical prospective quality improvement study. The goal of this initiative was to standardize the way fluid management and hemodynamic optimization are conducted during high-risk abdominal surgery in the Departments of Anesthesiology and Surgery at the University of California Irvine. For fluid management, the protocol consisted in standardized baseline crystalloid administration of 3 ml/kg/h and any additional boluses based on PGDT. The impact of the intervention was assessed on the length of stay in the hospital (LOS) and post-operative complications (NSQIP database). In the 1 year pre- and post-implementation periods, 128 and 202 patients were included. The average volume of fluid administered during the case was 9.9 [7.1-13.0] ml/kg/h in the pre- and 6.6 [4.7-9.5] ml/kg/h in the post-implementation period (p<0.01). LOS decreased from 10 [6-16] days to 7 [5-11] days (p = 0.0001). Based on the multiple linear regression analysis, the estimated coefficient for intervention was 0.203 (SE=0.054, p=0.0002) indicating that with the other conditions being held the same, introducing intervention reduced LOS by 18 % (95 % CI: 9 %-27 %). The incidence of NSQIP complications decreased from 39 % to 25 % (p=0.04). These results suggest that the implementation of a PI program focusing on the implementation of PGDT can transform fluid administration patterns and improve postoperative outcome in patients undergoing high-risk abdominal surgeries. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02057653 . Registered 17 December 2013.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 98 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 8 8%
Other 26 25%
Unknown 18 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 24 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 June 2015.
All research outputs
#6,332,855
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,630
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,632
of 395,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#308
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th 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 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 395,408 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 77% 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.