↓ Skip to main content

Bench-to-bedside review: Functional hemodynamics during surgery - should it be used for all high-risk cases?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
Bench-to-bedside review: Functional hemodynamics during surgery - should it be used for all high-risk cases?
Published in
Critical Care, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc11448
Pubmed ID
Authors

Azriel Perel, Marit Habicher, Michael Sander

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The administration of a fluid bolus is done frequently in the perioperative period to increase the cardiac output. Yet fluid loading fails to increase the cardiac output in more than 50% of critically ill and surgical patients. The assessment of fluid responsiveness (the slope of the left ventricular function curve) prior to fluid administration may thus not only help in detecting patients in need of fluids but may also prevent unnecessary and harmful fluid overload. Unfortunately, commonly used hemodynamic parameters, including the cardiac output itself, are poor predictors of fluid responsiveness, which is best assessed by functional hemodynamic parameters. These dynamic parameters reflect the response of cardiac output to a preload-modifying maneuver (for example, a mechanical breath or passive leg-raising), thus providing information about fluid responsiveness without the actual administration of fluids. All dynamic parameters, which include the respiratory variations in systolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, stroke volume and plethysmographic waveform, have been repeatedly shown to be superior to commonly used static preload parameters in predicting the response to fluid loading. Within their respective limitations, functional hemodynamic parameters should be used to guide fluid therapy as part of or independently of goal-directed therapy strategies in the perioperative period.

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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 2 2%
Germany 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 79 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 18%
Student > Postgraduate 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 22 27%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 69%
Engineering 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 16 19%
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 18 March 2013.
All research outputs
#17,457,927
of 25,610,986 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,492
of 6,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,542
of 291,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#79
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,610,986 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 291,215 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.