| Title |
Impact of early haemodynamic goal-directed therapy in patients undergoing emergency surgery: an open prospective, randomised trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10877-015-9691-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gordana Pavlovic, John Diaper, Christoph Ellenberger, Angela Frei, Karim Bendjelid, Fanny Bonhomme, Marc Licker |
| Abstract |
Haemodynamic goal-directed therapies (GDT) may improve outcome following elective major surgery. So far, few data exist regarding haemodynamic optimization during emergency surgery. In this randomized, controlled trial, 50 surgical patients with hypovolemic or septic conditions were enrolled and we compared two algorithms of GDTs based either on conventional parameters and pressure pulse variation (control group) or on cardiac index, global end-diastolic volume index and stroke volume variation as derived from the PiCCO monitoring system (optimized group). Postoperative outcome was estimated by a composite index including major complications and by the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score within the first 3 days after surgery (POD1, POD2 and POD3). Data from 43 patients were analyzed (control group, N = 23; optimized group, N = 20). Similar amounts of fluid were given in the two groups. Intraoperatively, dobutamine was given in 45 % optimized patients but in no control patients. Major complications occurred more frequently in the optimized group [19 (95 %) versus 10 (40 %) in the control group, P < 0.001]. Likewise, SOFA scores were higher in the optimized group on POD1 (10.2 ± 2.5 versus 6.6 ± 2.2 in the control group, P = 0.001), POD2 (8.4 ± 2.6 vs 5.0 ± 2.4 in the control group, P = 0.002) and POD 3 (5.2 ± 3.6 and 2.2 ± 1.3 in the control group, P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in hospital mortality (13 % in the control group and 25 % in the optimized group). Haemodynamic optimization based on volumetric and flow PiCCO-derived parameters was associated with a less favorable postoperative outcome compared with a conventional GDT protocol during emergency surgery. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 18 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 24 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 17 August 2020.
All research outputs
#6,311,891
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#152
of 679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,525
of 264,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 679 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 264,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.