↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence and risk factors of hypotension associated with preload-dependence during intermittent hemodialysis in critically ill patients

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Prevalence and risk factors of hypotension associated with preload-dependence during intermittent hemodialysis in critically ill patients
Published in
Critical Care, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1227-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurent Bitker, Frédérique Bayle, Hodane Yonis, Florent Gobert, Véronique Leray, Romain Taponnier, Sophie Debord, Alina Stoian-Cividjian, Claude Guérin, Jean-Christophe Richard

Abstract

Hypotension is a frequent complication of intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) performed in intensive care units (ICUs). Passive leg raising (PLR) combined with continuous measurement of cardiac output is highly reliable to identify preload dependence, and may provide new insights into the mechanisms involved in IHD-related hypotension. The aim of this study was to assess prevalence and risk factors of preload dependence-related hypotension during IHD in the ICU. A single-center prospective observational study performed on ICU patients undergoing IHD for acute kidney injury and monitored with a PiCCO® device. Primary end points were the prevalence of hypotension (defined as a mean arterial pressure below 65 mm Hg) and hypotension associated with preload dependence. Preload dependence was assessed by the passive leg raising test, and considered present if the systolic ejection volume increased by at least 10 % during the test, as assessed continuously by the PiCCO® device. Forty-seven patients totaling 107 IHD sessions were included. Hypotension was observed in 61 IHD sessions (57 %, CI95%: 47-66 %) and was independently associated with inotrope administration, higher SOFA score, lower time lag between ICU admission and IHD session, and lower MAP at IHD session onset. Hypotension associated with preload dependence was observed in 19 % (CI95%: 10-31 %) of sessions with hypotension, and was associated with mechanical ventilation, lower SAPS II, higher pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI) and dialysate sodium concentration at IHD session onset. ROC curve analysis identified PVPI and mechanical ventilation as the only variables with significant diagnostic performance to predict hypotension associated with preload dependence (respective AUC: 0.68 (CI95%: 0.53-0.83) and 0.69 (CI95%: 0.54-0.85). A PVPI ≥ 1.6 at IHD session onset predicted occurrence of hypotension associated with preload dependence during IHD with a sensitivity of 91 % (CI95%: 59-100 %), and a specificity of 53 % (CI95%: 42-63 %). The majority of hypotensive episodes occurring during intermittent hemodialysis are unrelated to preload dependence and should not necessarily lead to reduction of fluid removal by hemodialysis. However, high PVPI at IHD session onset and mechanical ventilation are risk factors of preload dependence-related hypotension, and should prompt reduction of planned fluid removal during the session, and/or an increase in session duration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 76 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 15%
Student > Postgraduate 11 14%
Student > Master 10 13%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 19 24%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 16 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 July 2021.
All research outputs
#2,980,463
of 25,498,750 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,485
of 6,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,711
of 313,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#58
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,498,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,575 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 62% 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 313,261 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.