↓ Skip to main content

Adverse events associated with poor neurological outcome during targeted temperature management and advanced critical care after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Adverse events associated with poor neurological outcome during targeted temperature management and advanced critical care after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0991-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Young-Min Kim, Chun Song Youn, Soo Hyun Kim, Byung Kook Lee, In Soo Cho, Gyu Chong Cho, Kyung Woon Jeung, Sang Hoon Oh, Seung Pill Choi, Jong Hwan Shin, Kyoung-Chul Cha, Joo Suk Oh, Hyeon Woo Yim, Kyu Nam Park

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the association of adverse events (AEs) during targeted temperature management (TTM) and other AEs and concomitant treatments during the advanced critical care period with poor neurological outcome at hospital discharge in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. This was a retrospective study using Korean Hypothermia Network registry data of adult OHCA patients treated with TTM in 24 teaching hospitals throughout South Korea from 2007 to 2012. Demographic characteristics, resuscitation and post-resuscitation variables, AEs, and concomitant treatments during TTM and the advanced critical care were collected. The primary outcome was poor neurological outcome, defined as a cerebral performance category (CPC) score of 3-5 at hospital discharge. The AEs and concomitant treatments were individually entered into the best multivariable predictive model of poor neurological outcome to evaluate the associations between each variable and outcome. A total of 930 patients, including 704 for whom a complete dataset of AEs and covariates was available for multivariable modeling, were included in the analysis; 476 of these patients exhibited poor neurological outcome [CPC 3 = 50 (7.1 %), CPC 4 = 214 (30.4 %), and CPC 5 = 212 (30.1 %)]. Common AEs included hyperglycemia (45.6 %), hypokalemia (31.3 %), arrhythmia (21.3 %) and hypotension (29 %) during cooling, and hypotension (21.6 %) during rewarming. Bleeding (5 %) during TTM was a rare AE. Common AEs during the advanced critical care included pneumonia (39.6 %), myoclonus (21.9 %), seizures (21.7 %) and hypoglycemia within 72 hours (23 %). After adjusting for independent predictors of outcome, cooling- and rewarming-related AEs were not significantly associated with poor neurological outcome. However, sepsis, myoclonus, seizure, hypoglycemia within 72 hours and anticonvulsant use during the advanced critical care were associated with poor neurological outcome [adjusted odds ratios (95 % confidence intervals) of 3.12 (1.40-6.97), 3.72 (1.93-7.16), 4.02 (2.04-7.91), 2.03 (1.09-3.78), and 1.69 (1.03-2.77), respectively]. Alternatively, neuromuscular blocker use was inversely associated with poor neurological outcome (0.48 [0.28-0.84]). Cooling- and rewarming-related AEs were not associated with poor neurological outcome at hospital discharge. Sepsis, myoclonus, seizure, hypoglycemia within 72 hours and anticonvulsant use during the advanced critical care period were associated with poor neurological outcome at hospital discharge in our study.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 24 29%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 21 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 14 August 2015.
All research outputs
#1,807,035
of 17,356,510 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,689
of 5,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,841
of 240,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,356,510 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,317 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 240,740 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.