↓ Skip to main content

Septic shock-3 vs 2: an analysis of the ALBIOS study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, September 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
53 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Septic shock-3 vs 2: an analysis of the ALBIOS study
Published in
Critical Care, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2169-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Vasques, Eleonora Duscio, Federica Romitti, Iacopo Pasticci, Pietro Caironi, Jennifer Meessen, Roberto Latini, Massimo Cressoni, Luigi Camporota, Antonio Pesenti, Roberto Fumagalli, Michael Quintel, Luciano Gattinoni

Abstract

A reanalysis of the ALBIOS trial suggested that patients with septic shock - defined by vasopressor-dependent hypotension in the presence of severe sepsis (Shock-2) - had a survival benefit when treated with albumin. The new septic shock definition (Shock-3) added the criterion of a lactate threshold of 2 mmol/L. We investigated how the populations defined according to Shock-2 and Shock-3 differed and whether the albumin benefit would be confirmed. This is a retrospective analysis of the ALBIOS study, a randomized controlled study conducted between 2008 and 2012 in 100 intensive care units in Italy comparing the administration of 20% albumin and crystalloids versus crystalloids alone in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. We analyzed data from 1741 patients from ALBIOS with serum lactate measurement available at baseline. We compared group size, physiological variables and 90-day mortality between patients defined by Shock-2 and Shock-3 and between the albumin and crystalloid treatment groups. We compared the Shock-2 and the Shock-3 definitions and the albumin and crystalloid treatment groups in terms of group size and physiological, laboratory and outcome variables. The Shock-3 definition reduced the population with shock by 34%. The Shock-3 group had higher lactate (p < 0.001), greater resuscitation-fluid requirement (p = 0.014), higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (p < 0.001) and Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment scores (p = 0.022), lower platelet count (p = 0.002) and higher 90-day mortality (46.7% vs 51.9%; p = 0.031). Albumin decreased mortality in Shock-2 patients compared to crystalloids (43.5% vs 49.9%; 12.6% relative risk reduction; p = 0.04). In patients defined by Shock-3 a similar benefit was observed for albumin with a 11.3% relative risk reduction (48.7% vs 54.9%; 11.3% relative risk reduction; p = 0.22). The Sepsis-3 definition reduced the size of the population with shock and showed a similar effect size in the benefits of albumin. The Shock-3 criteria will markedly slow patients' recruitment rates, in view of testing albumin in septic shock. ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00707122 . Registered on 30 June 2008.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 16%
Student > Master 10 11%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 8%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 27 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 33 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,214,861
of 25,754,670 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,006
of 6,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,536
of 352,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#29
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,754,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 352,808 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 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 71% of its contemporaries.