↓ Skip to main content

Propofol increases morbidity and mortality in a rat model of sepsis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
Title
Propofol increases morbidity and mortality in a rat model of sepsis
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0751-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin Schläpfer, Tobias Piegeler, Randal O Dull, David E Schwartz, Mao, Marcelo G Bonini, Birgit Roth Z’Graggen, Beatrice Beck-Schimmer, Richard D Minshall

Abstract

Severe sepsis is associated with approximately 50% mortality and accounts for tremendous healthcare costs. Most patients require ventilatory support and propofol is commonly used to sedate mechanically ventilated patients. Volatile anesthetics have been shown to attenuate inflammation in a variety of different settings. We therefore hypothesized that volatile anesthetic agents may offer beneficial immunomodulatory effects during the course of long-term intra-abdominal sepsis in rats under continuous sedation and ventilation for up to 24 hours. Sham operation or cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) was performed in adult male Wistar rats followed by mechanical ventilation. Animals were sedated for 24 hours with propofol (7 to 20 mg/kg/h), sevoflurane, desflurane or isoflurane (0.7 minimal alveolar concentration each). Septic animals sedated with propofol showed a mean survival time of 12 hours, whereas >56% of all animals in the volatile groups survived 24 hours (P <0.001). After 18 hours, base excess in propofol + CLP animals (-20.6 ± 2.0) was lower than in the volatile groups (isoflurane + CLP: -11.7 ± 4.2, sevoflurane + CLP: -11.8 ± 3.5, desflurane + CLP -14.2 ± 3.7; all P <0.03). Plasma endotoxin levels reached 2-fold higher levels in propofol + CLP compared to isoflurane + CLP animals at 12 hours (P <0.001). Also blood levels of inflammatory mediators (tumor necrosis factor-α, interleukin-1β, interleukin-10, CXCL-2, interferon-γ and high mobility group protein-1) were accentuated in propofol + CLP rats compared to the isoflurane + CLP group at the same time point (P <0.04). This is the first study to assess prolonged effects of sepsis and long-term application of volatile sedatives compared to propofol on survival, cardiovascular, inflammatory and end organ parameters. Results indicate that volatile anesthetics dramatically improved survival and attenuate systemic inflammation as compared to propofol. The main mechanism responsible for adverse propofol effects could be an enhanced plasma endotoxin concentration, leading to profound hypotension, which was unresponsive to fluid resuscitation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 63 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Professor 5 8%
Other 15 23%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 46%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 17 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 31 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,588,225
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,596
of 6,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,761
of 387,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#309
of 575 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 387,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 575 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.