↓ Skip to main content

Use of Pentastarch Solution in the Treatment of Patients with Hemorrhagic Hypovolemia: Randomized Phase II Study in the Emergency Room

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, January 1998
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Use of Pentastarch Solution in the Treatment of Patients with Hemorrhagic Hypovolemia: Randomized Phase II Study in the Emergency Room
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, January 1998
DOI 10.1007/s002689900340
Pubmed ID
Authors

Riad N. Younes, Ko C. Yin, Claudio J. Amino, Mario Itinoshe, Mauricio Rocha e Silva, Dario Birolini

Abstract

This study evaluates the hemodynamic effects of the administration of 10% pentastarch solution (PS) during the initial treatment of hypovolemia in trauma patients. This prospective randomized phase II study included trauma patients admitted to the emergency room with hemorrhagic hypovolemia: systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 90 mmHg. Upon admission, the patients were randomized to receive 10% PS (n = 12) or isotonic 0.9% NaCl solution (IS) (n = 11), infused intravenously in 250-ml boluses, repeated until SBP > 100 mmHg. Blood pressure, infused volumes necessary to maintain SBP, and overall survival rates were determined and compared between groups. SBP increased significantly following either IS (from 64.4 +/- 9.2 mmHg to 111.1 +/- 6.3 mmHg), or PS (from 63.7 +/- 10.6 mmHg to 108.1 +/- 9.8 mmHg) when compared to admission values (p < 0.05). Endovenous volumes infused were greater (p = 0.001) in IS patients (1420 +/- 298 ml) than in PS patients (356 +/- 64 ml). No blood was transfused into PS patients, compared to 370 +/- 140 ml of red blood cells transfused into IS patients (p = 0.015). Mortality rates were similar in the two groups (p = 0.725). We concluded that PS is a safe, efficient method for inducing hemodynamic recovery of hypovolemic trauma patients, with a clear reduction in the intravenous volumes required for acute resuscitation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 20%
Professor 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Other 4 20%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 60%
Engineering 2 10%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 November 2022.
All research outputs
#7,608,793
of 23,197,711 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#1,529
of 4,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,733
of 94,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,197,711 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 94,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.