↓ Skip to main content

Safety and efficacy of prothrombin complex concentrate as first-line treatment in bleeding after cardiac surgery.

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2016
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
38 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Safety and efficacy of prothrombin complex concentrate as first-line treatment in bleeding after cardiac surgery.
Published in
Critical Care, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-1172-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giangiuseppe Cappabianca, Giovanni Mariscalco, Fausto Biancari, Daniele Maselli, Francesca Papesso, Marzia Cottini, Sandro Crosta, Simona Banescu, Aamer B Ahmed, Cesare Beghi

Abstract

Bleeding after cardiac surgery requiring surgical reexploration and blood component transfusion is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Although prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) has been used satisfactorily in bleeding disorders, studies on its efficacy and safety after cardiopulmonary bypass are limited. Between January 2005 and December 2013, 3454 consecutive cardiac surgery patients were included in an observational study aimed at investigating the efficacy and safety of PCC as first-line coagulopathy treatment as a replacement for fresh frozen plasma (FFP). Starting in January 2012, PCC was introduced as solely first-line treatment for bleeding following cardiac surgery. After one-to-one propensity score-matched analysis, 225 pairs of patients receiving PCC (median dose 1500 IU) and FFP (median dose 2 U) were included. The use of PCC was associated with significantly decreased 24-h post-operative blood loss (836 ± 1226 vs. 935 ± 583 ml, p < 0.0001). Propensity score-adjusted multivariate analysis showed that PCC was associated with significantly lower risk of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions (odds ratio [OR] 0.50; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.80), decreased amount of RBC units (β unstandardised coefficient -1.42, 95 % CI -2.06 to -0.77) and decreased risk of transfusion of more than 2 RBC units (OR 0.53, 95 % CI 0.38-0.73). Patients receiving PCC had an increased risk of post-operative acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 1.44, 95 % CI 1.02-2.05) and renal replacement therapy (OR 3.35, 95 % CI 1.13-9.90). Hospital mortality was unaffected by PCC (OR 1.51, 95 % CI 0.84-2.72). In the cardiac surgery setting, the use of PCC compared with FFP was associated with decreased post-operative blood loss and RBC transfusion requirements. However, PCC administration may be associated with a higher risk of post-operative AKI.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 84 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 19 22%
Researcher 11 13%
Professor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 21 24%
Unknown 14 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 64%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 17 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#1,278,148
of 21,112,644 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,171
of 5,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,517
of 401,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#113
of 500 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,112,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,793 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 401,555 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 500 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.