↓ Skip to main content

Fluid therapy for septic shock resuscitation: which fluid should be used?

Overview of attention for article published in Einstein (São Paulo), August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Fluid therapy for septic shock resuscitation: which fluid should be used?
Published in
Einstein (São Paulo), August 2015
DOI 10.1590/s1679-45082015rw3273
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thiago Domingos Corrêa, Leonardo Lima Rocha, Camila Menezes Souza Pessoa, Eliézer Silva, Murillo Santucci Cesar de Assuncao

Abstract

Early resuscitation of septic shock patients reduces the sepsis-related morbidity and mortality. The main goals of septic shock resuscitation include volemic expansion, maintenance of adequate tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery, guided by central venous pressure, mean arterial pressure, mixed or central venous oxygen saturation and arterial lactate levels. An aggressive fluid resuscitation, possibly in association with vasopressors, inotropes and red blood cell concentrate transfusion may be necessary to achieve those hemodynamic goals. Nonetheless, even though fluid administration is one of the most common interventions offered to critically ill patients, the most appropriate type of fluid to be used remains controversial. According to recently published clinical trials, crystalloid solutions seem to be the most appropriate type of fluids for initial resuscitation of septic shock patients. Balanced crystalloids have theoretical advantages over the classic solutions, but there is not enough evidence to indicate it as first-line treatment. Additionally, when large amounts of fluids are necessary to restore the hemodynamic stability, albumin solutions may be a safe and effective alternative. Hydroxyethyl starches solutions must be avoided in septic patients due to the increased risk of acute renal failure, increased need for renal replacement therapy and increased mortality. Our objective was to present a narrative review of the literature regarding the major types of fluids and their main drawbacks in the initial resuscitation of the septic shock patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 20 17%
Student > Bachelor 19 16%
Student > Master 15 12%
Other 9 7%
Researcher 8 7%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 33 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 March 2017.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Einstein (São Paulo)
#233
of 576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,853
of 277,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Einstein (São Paulo)
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 277,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.