↓ Skip to main content

Terlipressin versus norepinephrine as infusion in patients with septic shock: a multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, July 2018
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
277 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
Title
Terlipressin versus norepinephrine as infusion in patients with septic shock: a multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00134-018-5267-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zi-Meng Liu, Juan Chen, Qiuye Kou, Qinhan Lin, Xiaobo Huang, Zhanhong Tang, Yan Kang, Ke Li, Lixin Zhou, Qing Song, Tongwen Sun, Ling Zhao, Xue Wang, Xiandi He, Chunting Wang, Benquan Wu, Jiandong Lin, Shiying Yuan, Qin Gu, Kejian Qian, Xianqing Shi, Yongwen Feng, Aihua Lin, Xiaoshun He, Xiang-Dong Guan

Abstract

Recent clinical data suggest that terlipressin, a vasopressin analogue, may be more beneficial in septic shock patients than catecholamines. However, terlipressin's effect on mortality is unknown. We set out to ascertain the efficacy and safety of continuous terlipressin infusion compared with norepinephrine (NE) in patients with septic shock. In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, patients with septic shock recruited from 21 intensive care units in 11 provinces of China were randomised (1:1) to receive either terlipressin (20-160 µg/h with maximum infusion rate of 4 mg/day) or NE (4-30 µg/min) before open-label vasopressors. The primary endpoint was mortality 28 days after the start of infusion. Primary efficacy endpoint analysis and safety analysis were performed on the data from a modified intention-to-treat population. Between 1 January 2013 and 28 February 2016, 617 patients were randomised (312 to the terlipressin group, 305 to the NE group). The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 526 (85.3%) patients (260 in the terlipressin group and 266 in the NE group). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality rate between the terlipressin group (40%) and the NE group (38%) (odds ratio 0.93 [95% CI 0.55-1.56]; p = 0.80). Change in SOFA score on day 7 was similar between the two groups: - 7 (IQR - 11 to 3) in the terlipressin group and - 6 (IQR - 10 to 5) in the NE group. There was no difference between the groups in the number of days alive and free of vasopressors. Overall, serious adverse events were more common in the terlipressin group than in the NE group (30% vs 12%; p < 0.001). In this multicentre, randomised, double-blinded trial, we observed no difference in mortality between terlipressin and NE infusion in patients with septic shock. Patients in the terlipressin group had a higher number of serious adverse events. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: ID NCT01697410.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 277 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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 158 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 15%
Other 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Student > Master 13 8%
Other 42 27%
Unknown 39 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 43 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 169. 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 15 June 2023.
All research outputs
#246,654
of 25,864,668 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#194
of 5,515 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,189
of 342,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#5
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,864,668 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 5,515 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.7. 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 342,821 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 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 95% of its contemporaries.