↓ Skip to main content

Sustained low efficiency dialysis using a single-pass batch system in acute kidney injury - a randomized interventional trial: the REnal Replacement Therapy Study in Intensive Care Unit PatiEnts

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2012
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
131 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 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
Sustained low efficiency dialysis using a single-pass batch system in acute kidney injury - a randomized interventional trial: the REnal Replacement Therapy Study in Intensive Care Unit PatiEnts
Published in
Critical Care, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11445
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vedat Schwenger, Markus A Weigand, Oskar Hoffmann, Ralf Dikow, Lars P Kihm, Jörg Seckinger, Nexhat Miftari, Matthias Schaier, Stefan Hofer, Caroline Haar, Peter P Nawroth, Martin Zeier, Eike Martin, Christian Morath

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with a high mortality of up to 60%. The mode of renal replacement therapy (intermittent versus continuous) has no impact on patient survival. Sustained low efficiency dialysis using a single-pass batch dialysis system (SLED-BD) has recently been introduced for the treatment of dialysis-dependent AKI. To date, however, only limited evidence is available in the comparison of SLED-BD versus continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with AKI. METHODS: Prospective, randomized, interventional, clinical study at a surgical intensive care unit of a university hospital. Between 1 April 2006 and 31 January 2009, 232 AKI patients who underwent renal replacement therapy (RRT) were randomized in the study. Follow-up was assessed until 30 August 2009. Patients were either assigned to 12-h SLED-BD or to 24-h predilutional CVVH. Both therapies were performed at a blood flow of 100 to 120 ml/min. RESULTS: 115 patients were treated with SLED-BD (total number of treatments n = 817) and 117 patients with CVVH (total number of treatments n = 877).The primary outcome measure, 90-day mortality, was similar between groups (SLED: 49.6% vs. CVVH: 55.6%, P = 0.43). Hemodynamic stability did not differ between SLED-BD and CVVH, whereas patients in the SLED-BD group had significantly fewer days of mechanical ventilation (17.7 ± 19.4 vs. 20.9 ± 19.8, P = 0.047) and fewer days in the ICU (19.6 ± 20.1 vs. 23.7 ± 21.9, P = 0.04). Patients treated with SLED needed fewer blood transfusions (1,375 ± 2,573 ml vs. 1,976 ± 3,316 ml, P = 0.02) and had a substantial reduction in nursing time spent for renal replacement therapy (P < 0.001) resulting in lower costs. CONCLUSIONS: SLED-BD was associated with reduced nursing time and lower costs compared to CVVH at similar outcomes. In the light of limited health care resources, SLED-BD offers an attractive alternative for the treatment of AKI in ICU patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00322530.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
France 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 138 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 16%
Other 21 14%
Student > Master 18 12%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 32 22%
Unknown 25 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 1%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 31 21%
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 06 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,373,625
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,071
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,024
of 179,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#4
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 68% 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 179,046 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.