↓ Skip to main content

Remote ischemic preconditioning for cardioprotection in elective inpatient abdominal surgery – a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Remote ischemic preconditioning for cardioprotection in elective inpatient abdominal surgery – a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12871-018-0524-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Samad Antonowicz, Davina Cavallaro, Nicola Jacques, Abby Brown, Tom Wiggins, James B. Haddow, Atul Kapila, Dominic Coull, Andrew Walden

Abstract

Perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) is common in elective inpatient abdominal surgery and correlates with mortality risk. Simple measures for reducing PMI in this cohort are needed. This study evaluated whether remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) could reduce PMI in elective inpatient abdominal surgery. This was a double-blind, sham-controlled trial with 1:1 parallel randomization. PMI was defined as any post-operative serum troponin T (hs-TNT) > 14 ng/L. Eighty-four participants were randomized to receiving RIPC (5 min of upper arm ischemia followed by 5 min reperfusion, for three cycles) or a sham-treatment immediately prior to surgery. The primary outcome was mean peak post-operative troponin in patients with PMI, and secondary outcomes included mean hs-TnT at individual timepoints, post-operative hs-TnT area under the curve (AUC), cardiovascular events and mortality. Predictors of PMI were also collected. Follow up was to 1 year. PMI was observed in 21% of participants. RIPC did not significantly influence the mean peak post-operative hs-TnT concentration in these patients (RIPC 25.65 ng/L [SD 9.33], sham-RIPC 23.91 [SD 13.2], mean difference 1.73 ng/L, 95% confidence interval - 9.7 to 13.1 ng/L, P = 0.753). The treatment did not influence any secondary outcome with the pre-determined definition of PMI. Redefining PMI as > 5 ng/L in line with recent data revealed a non-significant lower incidence in the RIPC cohort (68% vs 81%, P = 0.211), and significantly lower early hs-TnT release (12 h time-point, RIPC 5.5 ng/L [SD 5.5] vs sham 9.1 ng/L [SD 8.2], P = 0.03). RIPC did not at reduce the incidence or severity of PMI in these general surgical patients using pre-determined definitions. PMI is nonetheless common and effective cardioprotective strategies are required. This trial was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01850927 , 5th July 2013.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Master 3 7%
Professor 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 14 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 16 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,538,060
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#682
of 1,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,963
of 329,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#14
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,516 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 329,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 62% of its contemporaries.