↓ Skip to main content

Speckle tracking echocardiography in patients with septic shock: a case control study (SPECKSS)

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 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)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 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
Speckle tracking echocardiography in patients with septic shock: a case control study (SPECKSS)
Published in
Critical Care, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1327-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pauline Yeung Ng, Wai Ching Sin, Andrew Kei-Yan Ng, Wai Ming Chan

Abstract

Sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction is a well-recognized condition and confers worse outcomes in septic patients. Echocardiographic assessment by conventional parameters such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is often affected by ongoing changes in preload and afterload conditions. Novel echocardiographic technologies such as speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) have evolved for direct assessment of the myocardial function. We investigate the measurement of myocardial strain by speckle tracking echocardiography for the diagnosis of sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction. This is a case-control study at a university-affiliated medical intensive care unit. Consecutive adult medical patients admitted with a diagnosis of septic shock were included. Patients with other causes of myocardial dysfunction were excluded. They were compared to age-matched, gender-matched, and cardiovascular risk-factor-matched controls, who were admitted to hospital for sepsis but did not develop septic shock. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed on all patients within 24 hours of diagnosis, and a reassessment echocardiogram was performed in the study group of patients upon recovery. Patients with septic shock (n = 33) (study group) and 29 matched patients with sepsis but no septic shock (control group) were recruited. The mean sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score for the study and control groups were 10.2 and 1.6, respectively (P < 0.001). In patients with septic shock, the mean arterial pressure was lower (76 mmHg vs 82 mmHg, P = 0.032), and the heart rate was higher (99 bpm vs 86 bpm, P = 0.008). The cardiac output (5.9 L/min vs 5.5 L/min, P = 0.401) and systemic vascular resistance (1090 dynes•sec/cm(5) vs 1194 dynes•sec/cm(5), P = 0.303) were similar. The study group had a greater degree of myocardial dysfunction measured by global longitudinal strain (GLS) (-14.5 % vs -18.3 %, P <0.001), and the myocardial strain differed upon diagnosis and recovery (-14.5 % vs -16.0 %, P = 0.010). Conventional echocardiographic measurements such as LVEF (59 % in the study group vs 61 % in the control group, P = 0.169) did not differ between the two groups. Speckle tracking echocardiography can detect significant left ventricular impairment in patients with septic shock, which was not otherwise detectable by conventional echocardiography. The reversible nature of myocardial dysfunction in sepsis was also demonstrable. This echocardiographic technique is useful in the diagnosis and monitoring of sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Master 16 12%
Student > Postgraduate 13 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 9%
Other 11 8%
Other 32 24%
Unknown 32 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 33 25%
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 22 May 2016.
All research outputs
#3,056,905
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,545
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,521
of 328,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#80
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th 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 61% 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 328,718 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 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.