↓ Skip to main content

Higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in shock: a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
20 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
147 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
226 Mendeley
Title
Higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in shock: a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00134-016-4237-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

François Lamontagne, Maureen O. Meade, Paul C. Hébert, Pierre Asfar, François Lauzier, Andrew J.E. Seely, Andrew G. Day, Sangeeta Mehta, John Muscedere, Sean M. Bagshaw, Niall D. Ferguson, Deborah J. Cook, Salmaan Kanji, Alexis F. Turgeon, Margaret S. Herridge, Sanjay Subramanian, Jacques Lacroix, Neill K.J. Adhikari, Damon C. Scales, Alison Fox-Robichaud, Yoanna Skrobik, Richard P. Whitlock, Robert S. Green, Karen K.Y. Koo, Teddie Tanguay, Sheldon Magder, Daren K. Heyland, for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group.

Abstract

In shock, hypotension may contribute to inadequate oxygen delivery, organ failure and death. We conducted the Optimal Vasopressor Titration (OVATION) pilot trial to inform the design of a larger trial examining the effect of lower versus higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor therapy in shock. We randomly assigned critically ill patients who were presumed to suffer from vasodilatory shock regardless of admission diagnosis to a lower (60-65 mmHg) versus a higher (75-80 mmHg) MAP target. The primary objective was to measure the separation in MAP between groups. We also recorded days with protocol deviations, enrolment rate, cardiac arrhythmias and mortality for prespecified subgroups. A total of 118 patients were enrolled from 11 centres (2.3 patients/site/month of screening). The between-group separation in MAP was 9 mmHg (95 % CI 7-11). In the lower and higher MAP groups, we observed deviations on 12 versus 8 % of all days on vasopressors (p = 0.059). Risks of cardiac arrhythmias (20 versus 36 %, p = 0.07) and hospital mortality (30 versus 33 %, p = 0.84) were not different between lower and higher MAP arms. Among patients aged 75 years or older, a lower MAP target was associated with reduced hospital mortality (13 versus 60 %, p = 0.03) but not in younger patients. This pilot study supports the feasibility of a large trial comparing lower versus higher MAP targets for shock. Further research may help delineate the reasons for vasopressor dosing in excess of prescribed targets and how individual patient characteristics modify the response to vasopressor therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 223 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 32 14%
Researcher 24 11%
Student > Postgraduate 22 10%
Student > Master 22 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 8%
Other 53 23%
Unknown 55 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 120 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Engineering 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 59 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 03 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,286,343
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,154
of 5,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,966
of 315,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#8
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 315,259 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 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 92% of its contemporaries.