↓ Skip to main content

Incidence of hypotension according to the discontinuation order of vasopressors in the management of septic shock: a prospective randomized trial (DOVSS)

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
97 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Incidence of hypotension according to the discontinuation order of vasopressors in the management of septic shock: a prospective randomized trial (DOVSS)
Published in
Critical Care, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2034-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyeongman Jeon, Jae-Uk Song, Chi Ryang Chung, Jeong Hoon Yang, Gee Young Suh

Abstract

Vasopressin (AVP) is commonly added to norepinephrine (NE) to reverse shock in patients with sepsis. However, there are no data to support the appropriate strategy of vasopressor tapering in patients on concomitant NE and AVP who are recovering from septic shock. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of hypotension while tapering vasopressors in patients on concomitant NE and AVP recovering from septic shock. Patients with septic shock receiving concomitant NE and AVP were randomly assigned to taper NE first (NE group) or AVP first (AVP group). The primary end point was the incidence of hypotension within one hour of tapering of the first vasopressor. We also evaluated the association between serum copeptin levels and the occurrence of hypotension. The study was stopped early due to a significant difference in the incidence of hypotension after 38 and 40 patients were enrolled in the NE group and the AVP group, respectively. There were 26 patients (68.4%) in the NE group versus 9 patients (22.5%) in the AVP group who developed hypotension after tapering the first vasopressor (p < 0.001). There was a similar finding during the subsequent tapering of the second vasopressor (64.5% in the NE vs 25.0% in the AVP group, p = 0.020). Finally, NE tapering was significantly associated with hypotension during the study period (hazard ratio, 2.221; 95% confidence interval, 1.106-4.460; p = 0.025). The serum copeptin level was lower in patients in whom hypotension developed during tapering of AVP than it was in those without hypotension. Tapering NE rather than AVP may be associated with a higher incidence of hypotension in patients recovering from septic shock who are on concomitant NE and AVP. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are required to better determine the appropriate strategy for vasopressor tapering. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01493102 . Registered on 15 December 2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 97 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 13%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 27 23%
Unknown 38 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 43%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 3%
Chemistry 4 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 40 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 30 July 2021.
All research outputs
#734,504
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#524
of 6,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,190
of 344,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#16
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,558 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 344,165 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.