↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Evaluation of Crystalloid Resuscitation Rate in a Human Model of Compensated Haemorrhagic Shock

Overview of attention for article published in Shock, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Comparative Evaluation of Crystalloid Resuscitation Rate in a Human Model of Compensated Haemorrhagic Shock
Published in
Shock, July 2016
DOI 10.1097/shk.0000000000000610
Pubmed ID
Authors

Loretta Ho, Lawrence Lau, Leonid Churilov, Bernhard Riedel, Larry McNicol, Robert G. Hahn, Laurence Weinberg

Abstract

The most effective rate of fluid resuscitation in haemorrhagic shock is unknown. We performed a randomized crossover pilot study in a healthy volunteer model of compensated haemorrhagic shock. Following venesection of 15 ml.kg of blood, participants were randomized to 20 mL.kg of crystalloid over 10 minutes (FAST treatment) or 30 minutes (SLOW treatment). The primary end point was oxygen delivery (DO2). Secondary end points included pressure and flow-based haemodynamic variables, blood volume expansion, and clinical biochemistry. Nine normotensive healthy adult volunteers participated. No significant differences were observed in DO2 and biochemical variables between the SLOW and FAST groups. Blood volume was reduced by 16% following venesection, with a corresponding 5% reduction in cardiac index (CI) (p < 0.001). Immediately following resuscitation the increase in blood volume corresponded to 54% of the infused volume under FAST treatment and 69% of the infused volume under SLOW treatment (p = 0.03). This blood volume expansion attenuated with time to 24% and 25% of the infused volume 30 minutes post-infusion. During fluid resuscitation, blood pressure was higher under FAST treatment. However, CI paradoxically decreased in most participants during the resuscitation phase; a finding not observed under SLOW treatment. FAST or SLOW fluid resuscitation had no significant impact on DO2 between treatment groups. In both groups, changes in CI and blood pressure did not reflect the magnitude of intravascular blood volume deficit. Crystalloid resuscitation expanded intravascular blood volume by approximately 25%.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 24 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 25 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 March 2018.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Shock
#2,010
of 3,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#274,356
of 372,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Shock
#23
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,259 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 372,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.