↓ Skip to main content

Effect of postoperative goal-directed therapy in cancer patients undergoing high-risk surgery: a randomized clinical trial and meta-analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Effect of postoperative goal-directed therapy in cancer patients undergoing high-risk surgery: a randomized clinical trial and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2055-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aline Rejane Muller Gerent, Juliano Pinheiro Almeida, Evgeny Fominskiy, Giovanni Landoni, Gisele Queiroz de Oliveira, Stephanie Itala Rizk, Julia Tizue Fukushima, Claudia Marques Simoes, Ulysses Ribeiro, Clarice Lee Park, Rosana Ely Nakamura, Rafael Alves Franco, Patricia Inês Cândido, Cintia Rosa Tavares, Ligia Camara, Graziela dos Santos Rocha Ferreira, Elisangela Pinto Marinho de Almeida, Roberto Kalil Filho, Filomena Regina Barbosa Gomes Galas, Ludhmila Abrahão Hajjar

Abstract

Perioperative goal-directed hemodynamic therapy (GDHT) has been advocated in high-risk patients undergoing noncardiac surgery to reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality. We hypothesized that using cardiac index (CI)-guided GDHT in the postoperative period for patients undergoing high-risk surgery for cancer treatment would reduce 30-day mortality and postoperative complications. A randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial was performed in a tertiary oncology hospital. All adult patients undergoing high-risk cancer surgery who required intensive care unit admission were randomly allocated to a CI-guided GDHT group or to a usual care group. In the GDHT group, postoperative therapy aimed at CI ≥ 2.5 L/min/m2 using fluids, inotropes and red blood cells during the first 8 postoperative hours. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of 30-day all-cause mortality and severe postoperative complications during the hospital stay. A meta-analysis was also conducted including all randomized trials of postoperative GDHT published from 1966 to May 2017. A total of 128 patients (64 in each group) were randomized. The primary outcome occurred in 34 patients of the GDHT group and in 28 patients of the usual care group (53.1% vs 43.8%, absolute difference 9.4 (95% CI, - 7.8 to 25.8); p = 0.3). During the 8-h intervention period more patients in the GDHT group received dobutamine when compared to the usual care group (55% vs 16%, p < 0.001). A meta-analysis of nine randomized trials showed no differences in postoperative mortality (risk ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.59-1.23; p = 0.4; p for heterogeneity = 0.7; I2 = 0%) and in the overall complications rate (risk ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.71-1.08; p = 0.2; p for heterogeneity = 0.07; I2 = 48%), but a reduced hospital length of stay in the GDHT group (mean difference (MD) - 1.6; 95% CI - 2.75 to - 0.46; p = 0.006; p for heterogeneity = 0.002; I2 = 74%). CI-guided hemodynamic therapy in the first 8 postoperative hours does not reduce 30-day mortality and severe complications during hospital stay when compared to usual care in cancer patients undergoing high-risk surgery. www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT01946269 . Registered on 16 September 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Researcher 9 13%
Other 7 10%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 24 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Psychology 1 1%
Materials Science 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 26 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 01 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,587,744
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,779
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,845
of 343,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#66
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 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 57% 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 343,952 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.