↓ Skip to main content

Cardiopulmonary responses during the cooling and the extracorporeal life support rewarming phases in a porcine model of accidental deep hypothermic cardiac arrest

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Cardiopulmonary responses during the cooling and the extracorporeal life support rewarming phases in a porcine model of accidental deep hypothermic cardiac arrest
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0283-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guillaume Debaty, Maxime Maignan, Bertrand Perrin, Angélique Brouta, Dorra Guergour, Candice Trocme, Vincent Bach, Stéphane Tanguy, Raphaël Briot

Abstract

This study aimed to assess cardiac and pulmonary pathophysiological responses during cooling and extracorporeal life support (ECLS) rewarming in a porcine model of deep hypothermic cardiac arrest (DHCA). In addition, we evaluated whether providing a lower flow rate of ECLS during the rewarming phase might attenuate cardiopulmonary injuries. Twenty pigs were cannulated for ECLS, cooled until DHCA occurred and subjected to 30 min of cardiac arrest. In order to assess the physiological impact of ECLS on cardiac output we measured flow in the pulmonary artery using Doppler echocardiography as well as a modified thermodilution technique using the Swan-Ganz catheter (injection site in the right ventricle). The animals were randomized into two groups during rewarming: a group with a low blood flow rate of 1.5 L/min (LF group) and a group with a normal flow rate of 3.0 L/min (NF group). The ECLS temperature was adjusted to 5 °C above the central core. Cardiac output, hemodynamics and pulmonary function parameters were evaluated. During the cooling phase, cardiac output, heart rhythm and blood pressure decreased continuously. Pulmonary artery pressure tended to increase at 32 °C compared to the initial value (20.2 ± 1.7 mmHg vs. 29.1 ± 5.6 mmHg, p = 0.09). During rewarming, arterial blood pressure was higher in the NF than in the LF group at 20° and 25 °C (p = 0.003 and 0.05, respectively). After rewarming to 35 °C, cardiac output was 3.9 ± 0.5 L/min in the NF group vs. 2.7 ± 0.5 L/min in LF group (p = 0.06). At the end of rewarming under ECLS cardiac output was inversely proportional to the ECLS flow rate. Moreover, the ECLS flow rate did not significantly change pulmonary vascular resistance. Using a newly developed experimental model of DHCA treated by ECLS, we assessed the cardiac and pulmonary pathophysiological response during the cooling phase and the ECLS rewarming phase. Despite lower metabolic need during hypothermia, a low ECLS blood flow rate during rewarming did not improved cardiopulmonary injuries after rewarming. A low ECLS flow rate during the rewarming phase did not attenuate pulmonary lesions, increased blood lactate level and tended to decrease cardiac output after rewarming. A normal ECLS flow rate did not increase pulmonary vascular resistance compared to a low flow rate. This experimental model on pigs contributes a number of pathophysiological findings relevant to the rewarming strategy for patients who have undergone accidental DHCA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 15%
Other 4 12%
Professor 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,475,442
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#821
of 1,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,871
of 354,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 354,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.