↓ Skip to main content

Influence of temperature on thromboelastometry and platelet aggregation in cardiac arrest patients undergoing targeted temperature management

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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Influence of temperature on thromboelastometry and platelet aggregation in cardiac arrest patients undergoing targeted temperature management
Published in
Critical Care, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1302-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anni Nørgaard Jeppesen, Hans Kirkegaard, Susanne Ilkjær, Anne Mette Hvas

Abstract

Coagulation can be visualised using whole blood coagulation analyses such as thromboelastometry and platelet aggregation tests; however, the role of temperature in the analyses is ambiguous. The aim was to examine whether temperature influences the whole blood coagulation tests. We included 40 patients treated with targeted temperature management (33 ± 1 °C) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The blood samples were obtained on hypothermia and normothermia. Each blood sample was analysed simultaneously at 33 °C and 37 °C by thromboelastography (ROTEM®) employing the assays EXTEM®, INTEM®, FIBTEM® and HEPTEM®, and by Multiplate®Analyzer, using COLtest®, ADPtest®, ASPItest® and TRAPtest® as agonists. Data on antithrombotic drugs were collected systematically from medical records, and data were analysed using repeated measurement analysis of variance (ANOVA). The ROTEM® analyses showed increased clotting time, lower maximum velocity and increased time to maximum velocity (all p values <0.02) when performed at 33 °C compared with 37 °C, irrespective of the patients being hypothermic (median 33.1 °C) or normothermic (median 37.5 °C). However, EXTEM® time to maximum velocity showed no difference between the analyses performed at 33 °C and 37 °C when the patients were hypothermic (p = 0.83). No differences were found in maximum clot firmness (all p values >0.09) analysed at 33 °C and 37 °C, independent of the body temperature. In the hypothermic blood sample, no difference was found when using the COLtest®, ASPItest® or TRAPtest® to compare platelet aggregation analysed at 33 °C and 37 °C (all p values >0.19), but platelet aggregation was significantly higher using the ADPtest® (p < 0.001) when analysed at 33 °C. In the normothermic blood sample, the TRAPtest® showed no difference (p = 0.73) when performed at 33 °C; however, significantly lower aggregation was found using the COLtest® and ASPItest® (all p values <0.001), while a higher aggregation at 33 °C was found using the ADPtest® (p = 0.003). ROTEM® analyses seemed not to be dependent on body temperature but showed a slower initiation of coagulation when analysed at 33 °C compared with 37 °C. The Multiplate®Analyzer results were dependent on the temperature used in the analyses and the body temperature. In whole blood coagulation tests, the temperature used in the analyses should be kept at 37 °C irrespective of the patient's body temperature being 33 °C or 37 °C.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 15 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Engineering 2 4%
Chemistry 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#3,537,256
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,748
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,132
of 312,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#76
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 58% 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 312,190 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.