↓ Skip to main content

Fluid resuscitation practices in cardiac surgery patients in the USA: a survey of health care providers

Overview of attention for article published in Perioperative Medicine, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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 resuscitation practices in cardiac surgery patients in the USA: a survey of health care providers
Published in
Perioperative Medicine, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13741-017-0071-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Solomon Aronson, Paul Nisbet, Martin Bunke

Abstract

Fluid resuscitation during cardiac surgery is common with significant variability in clinical practice. Our goal was to investigate current practice patterns of fluid volume expansion in patients undergoing cardiac surgeries in the USA. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of 124 cardiothoracic surgeons, cardiovascular anesthesiologists, and perfusionists. Survey questions were designed to assess clinical decision-making patterns of intravenous (IV) fluid utilization in cardiovascular surgery for five types of patients who need volume expansion: (1) patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) without bleeding, (2) patients undergoing CPB with bleeding, (3) patients undergoing acute normovolemic hemodilution (ANH), (4) patients requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or use of a ventricular assist device (VAD), and (5) patients undergoing either off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (OPCABG) surgery or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). First-choice fluid used in fluid boluses for these five patient types was requested. Descriptive statistics were performed using Kruskal-Wallis test and follow-up tests, including t tests, to evaluate differences among respondent groups. The most commonly preferred indicators of volume status were blood pressure, urine output, cardiac output, central venous pressure, and heart rate. The first choice of fluid for patients needing volume expansion during CPB without bleeding was crystalloids, whereas 5% albumin was the most preferred first choice of fluid for bleeding patients. For volume expansion during ECMO or VAD, the respondents were equally likely to prefer 5% albumin or crystalloids as a first choice of IV fluid, with 5% albumin being the most frequently used adjunct fluid to crystalloids. Surgeons, as a group, more often chose starches as an adjunct fluid to crystalloids for patients needing volume expansion during CPB without bleeding. Surgeons were also more likely to use 25% albumin as an adjunct fluid than were anesthesiologists. While most perfusionists reported using crystalloids to prime the CPB circuit, one third preferred a mixture of 25% albumin and crystalloids. Less interstitial edema and more sustained volume expansion were considered the most important colloid traits in volume expansion. Fluid utilization practice patterns in the USA varied depending on patient characteristics and clinical specialties of health care professionals.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 16%
Student > Postgraduate 3 16%
Student > Master 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Materials Science 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,582,792
of 12,384,948 outputs
Outputs from Perioperative Medicine
#58
of 115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,318
of 296,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perioperative Medicine
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,384,948 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 296,158 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.