↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Two Central Venous Pressure Control Strategies to Prevent Atrial Fibrillation After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Overview of attention for article published in Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Comparison of Two Central Venous Pressure Control Strategies to Prevent Atrial Fibrillation After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
Published in
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, April 2017
DOI 10.5935/abc.20170044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mario Augusto Cray da Costa, Wesley Lirani, Ana Caroline Wippich, Luana Lopes, Eduardo de Souza Tolentino, Beatriz Zampar, Marcelo Derbli Schafranski

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) takes place in 10-40% of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and increases cardiovascular mortality. Enlargement of atrial chambers is associated with increased AF incidence, so patients with higher central venous pressure (CVP) are expected to have larger atrial distension, which increases AF incidence. To compare post-CABG AF incidence, following two CVP control strategies. Interventional, randomized, controlled clinical study. The sample comprised 140 patients undergoing CABG between 2011 and 2015. They were randomized into two groups, G15 and G20, with CVP maintained ≤ 15 cmH2O and ≤ 20 cmH2O, respectively. 70 patients were included in each group. The AF incidence in G15 was 8.57%, and in G20, 22.86%, with absolute risk reduction of 14.28%, and number needed to treat (NNT) of 7 (p = 0.03). Mortality (G15 = 5.71%; G20 = 11.42%; p = 0.07), hospital length of stay (G15 = 7.14 days; G20 = 8.21 days; p = 0.36), number of grafts (median: G15 = 3, G2 = 2; p = 0.22) and cardiopulmonary bypass use (G15 = 67.10%; G20 = 55.70%; p = 0.22) were statistically similar. Age (p = 0.04) and hospital length of stay (p = 0.001) were significantly higher in patients who developed AF in both groups. Keeping CVP low in the first 72 post-CABG hours reduces the relative risk of AF, and may be useful to prevent AF after CABG. A fibrilação atrial (FA) ocorre em 10-40% dos pacientes submetidos a cirurgia de revascularização miocárdica (RM), e eleva a mortalidade cardiovascular. Como o aumento dos átrios está associado ao aumento da incidência de FA, espera-se que pacientes com pressão venosa central (PVC) mais alta tenham maior distensão atrial, o que eleva a incidência dessa arritmia. Comparar a incidência de FA em pós-operatório de RM, seguindo duas estratégias de controle de PVC. Estudo clínico randomizado controlado intervencionista. A amostra foi composta por 140 pacientes submetidos a RM entre 2011 e 2015. Os pacientes foram randomizados em dois grupos, G15 e G20, mantidos com PVC máxima de 15 cmH2O e 20 cmH2O, respectivamente. Foram incluídos 70 pacientes em cada grupo. A incidência da arritmia em G15 foi de 8,57% e, no G20, de 22,86%, com redução de risco absoluto de 14,28% e número necessário para tratar (NNT) de 7 (p = 0,03). Mortalidade (G15 = 5,71%; G20 = 11,42%; p = 0,07), tempo de internamento (G15 = 7,14 dias; G20 = 8,21 dias; p = 0,36), número de enxertos (medianas: G15 = 3, G2 = 2; p = 0,22) e uso de circulação extracorpórea (G15 = 67,10%; G20 = 55,70%; p = 0,22) mostraram-se estatisticamente semelhantes. A idade (p = 0,04) e o tempo de internamento (p = 0,001) foram significativamente maiores nos pacientes que desenvolveram FA nos dois grupos. Manter a PVC com valores mais baixos nas primeiras 72h após a cirurgia de RM reduz o risco relativo de FA e pode ser uma ferramenta útil na prevenção da FA após RM.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 20%
Other 5 13%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 13 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 15 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 September 2017.
All research outputs
#7,899,670
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
#210
of 1,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,391
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,210 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 323,961 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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.