↓ Skip to main content

Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
593 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
833 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
Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, May 2017
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1704154
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashish Khanna, Shane W English, Xueyuan S Wang, Kealy Ham, James Tumlin, Harold Szerlip, Laurence W Busse, Laith Altaweel, Timothy E Albertson, Caleb Mackey, Michael T McCurdy, David W Boldt, Stefan Chock, Paul J Young, Kenneth Krell, Richard G Wunderink, Marlies Ostermann, Raghavan Murugan, Michelle N Gong, Rakshit Panwar, Johanna Hästbacka, Raphael Favory, Balasubramanian Venkatesh, B Taylor Thompson, Rinaldo Bellomo, Jeffrey Jensen, Stew Kroll, Lakhmir S Chawla, George F Tidmarsh, Adam M Deane

Abstract

Background Vasodilatory shock that does not respond to high-dose vasopressors is associated with high mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of angiotensin II for the treatment of patients with this condition. Methods We randomly assigned patients with vasodilatory shock who were receiving more than 0.2 μg of norepinephrine per kilogram of body weight per minute or the equivalent dose of another vasopressor to receive infusions of either angiotensin II or placebo. The primary end point was a response with respect to mean arterial pressure at hour 3 after the start of infusion, with response defined as an increase from baseline of at least 10 mm Hg or an increase to at least 75 mm Hg, without an increase in the dose of background vasopressors. Results A total of 344 patients were assigned to one of the two regimens; 321 received a study intervention (163 received angiotensin II, and 158 received placebo) and were included in the analysis. The primary end point was reached by more patients in the angiotensin II group (114 of 163 patients, 69.9%) than in the placebo group (37 of 158 patients, 23.4%) (odds ratio, 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.76 to 13.3; P<0.001). At 48 hours, the mean improvement in the cardiovascular Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (scores range from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating more severe dysfunction) was greater in the angiotensin II group than in the placebo group (-1.75 vs. -1.28, P=0.01). Serious adverse events were reported in 60.7% of the patients in the angiotensin II group and in 67.1% in the placebo group. Death by day 28 occurred in 75 of 163 patients (46%) in the angiotensin II group and in 85 of 158 patients (54%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.07; P=0.12). Conclusions Angiotensin II effectively increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock that did not respond to high doses of conventional vasopressors. (Funded by La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company; ATHOS-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02338843 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 658 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 833 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 829 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 157 19%
Researcher 106 13%
Student > Postgraduate 87 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 64 8%
Student > Master 62 7%
Other 181 22%
Unknown 176 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 460 55%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 60 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 15 2%
Other 65 8%
Unknown 198 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 642. 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 20 March 2024.
All research outputs
#34,593
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#1,287
of 32,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#656
of 327,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#30
of 293 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 327,653 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 293 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.