↓ Skip to main content

Effect of hemoadsorption during cardiopulmonary bypass surgery – a blinded, randomized, controlled pilot study using a novel adsorbent

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 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 (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
130 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
Effect of hemoadsorption during cardiopulmonary bypass surgery – a blinded, randomized, controlled pilot study using a novel adsorbent
Published in
Critical Care, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1270-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin H. Bernardi, Harald Rinoesl, Klaus Dragosits, Robin Ristl, Friedrich Hoffelner, Philipp Opfermann, Christian Lamm, Falk Preißing, Dominik Wiedemann, Michael J. Hiesmayr, Andreas Spittler

Abstract

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) surgery initiates a systemic inflammatory response, which is associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality. Hemoadsorption (HA) of cytokines may suppress inflammatory responses and improve outcomes. We tested a new sorbent used for HA (CytoSorb™; CytoSorbents Europe GmbH, Berlin, Germany) installed in the CPB circuit on changes of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines levels, inflammation markers, and differences in patients' perioperative course. In this first pilot trial, 37 blinded patients were undergoing elective CPB surgery at the Medical University of Vienna and were randomly assigned to HA (n = 19) or control group (n = 18). The primary outcome was differences of cytokine levels (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-18, TNF-α, and IL-10) within the first five postoperative days. We also analyzed whether we can observe any differences in ex vivo lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced TNF-α production, a reduction of high-mobility box group 1 (HMGB1), or other inflammatory markers. Additionally, measurements for fluid components, blood products, catecholamine treatment, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), and 30-day mortality were analyzed. We did not find differences in our primary outcome immediately following the HA treatment, although we observed differences for IL-10 24 hours after CPB (HA: median 0.3, interquartile range (IQR) 0-4.5; control: not traceable, P = 0.0347) and 48 hours after CPB (median 0, IQR 0-1.2 versus not traceable, P = 0.0185). We did not find any differences for IL-6 between both groups, and other cytokines were rarely expressed. We found differences in pretreatment levels of HMGB1 (HA: median 0, IQR 0-28.1; control: median 48.6, IQR 12.7-597.3, P = 0.02083) but no significant changes to post-treatment levels. No differences in inflammatory markers, fluid administration, blood substitution, catecholamines, BIA, or 30-day mortality were found. We did not find any reduction of the pro-inflammatory response in our patients and therefore no changes in their perioperative course. However, IL-10 showed a longer-lasting anti-inflammatory effect. The clinical impact of prolonged IL-10 needs further evaluation. We also observed strong inter-individual differences in cytokine levels; therefore, patients with an exaggerated inflammatory response to CPB need to be identified. The implementation of HA during CPB was feasible. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01879176 , registration date: June 7, 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Other 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 40 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 43 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,405,050
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,102
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,212
of 315,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#64
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 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 67% 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 315,676 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 97 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.