↓ Skip to main content

Noradrenaline and dobutamine effects on the volume expansion with normal saline in rabbits subjected to hemorrhage

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
Noradrenaline and dobutamine effects on the volume expansion with normal saline in rabbits subjected to hemorrhage
Published in
Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, September 2016
DOI 10.1590/s0102-865020160090000008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gualter Lisboa Ramalho, Matheus Fachini Vane, Luciana Cavalcanti Lima, Lucas Fachini Vane, Rosa Beatriz Amorim, Maria Aparecida Domingues, José Mariano Soares de Moraes, Lídia Raquel de Carvalho, Pedro Paulo Tanaka, Luiz Antonio Vane

Abstract

To evaluate the effects of dobutamine (DB), noradrenaline (NA), and their combination (NADB), on volume retention in rabbits submitted to hemorrhage. Thirty six rabbits were randomly divided into 6 groups: SHAM, Control, Saline, DB, NA, DB+NA. All the animals, except for SHAM, were subjected to hemorrhage of 25% of the calculated blood volume. Control animals were replaced with their own blood. The other groups received NSS 3 times the volume withdrawn. The intravascular retention, hematocrit, diuresis, central venous pressure, mean arterial pressure, NGAL, dry-to-wet lung weight ratio (DTWR) and the lung and kidney histology were analyzed. Replacement with NSS and NA, DB or NA+DB did not produce differences in the intravascular retention. After hemorrhage, the animals presented a significant decrease in the MAP and CVP, which were maintained until volume replacement. Regarding NGAL, dry-to-wet-lung-weight ratio, lung and kidney histology, there were no statistical differences between the groups. The use of noradrenaline, dobutamine or their combination did not increase the intravascular retention of volume after normal saline infusion.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 20%
Student > Postgraduate 1 20%
Student > Master 1 20%
Unknown 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 20%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 20%
Unknown 1 20%

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 03 June 2017.
All research outputs
#9,971,602
of 11,251,036 outputs
Outputs from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#84
of 116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,232
of 267,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,251,036 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 116 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 267,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them