↓ Skip to main content

Cardiac output Optimisation following Liver Transplant (COLT) trial: study protocol for a feasibility  randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Cardiac output Optimisation following Liver Transplant (COLT) trial: study protocol for a feasibility  randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2488-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Farid Froghi, Rahul Koti, Kurinchi Gurusamy, Susan Mallett, Douglas Thorburn, Linda Selves, Sarah James, Jeshika Singh, Manuel Pinto, Christine Eastgate, Margaret McNeil, Helder Filipe, Fatima Jichi, Nick Schofield, Daniel Martin, Brian Davidson

Abstract

Patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing liver transplantation have a hyperdynamic circulation which persists into the early postoperative period making accurate assessment of fluid requirements challenging. Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in a number of surgery settings. The impact of GDFT in patients undergoing liver transplantation is unknown. A feasibility trial was designed to determine patient and clinician support for recruitment into a randomised controlled trial of GDFT following liver transplantation, adherence to a GDFT protocol, participant withdrawal, and to determine appropriate endpoints for a subsequent larger trial to evaluate the efficacy of GDFT in patients undergoing liver transplantation. The Cardiac output Optimisation following Liver Transplant (COLT) trial is designed as a prospective, single-centre, randomised controlled study to assess the feasibility and safety of GDFT in liver transplantation for patients with cirrhosis. Consenting adults (aged between 18 and 80 years) with biopsy-proven liver cirrhosis who have been selected to undergo a first liver transplantation will be included in the trial and randomised into GDFT or standard care starting immediately after surgery and continuing for the first 12 h thereafter. Both groups will have cardiac output and stroke volume monitored using the FloTrac (EV1000) device. The intervention will consist of a protocolised GDFT approach to patient management, using stroke volume optimisation. The control group will receive standard care, without stroke volume and cardiac output measurement. After 12 h the patient's fluid management will revert to standard of care. The primary endpoint of this study is feasibility. Secondary endpoints will include a safety assessment of the intervention, graft and patient survival, liver function, postoperative complications graded by Clavien-Dindo criteria, length of intensive care and hospital stay and quality of life across the intervention and control groups. There is a growing body of evidence that the use of perioperative GDFT in surgical patients can improve outcomes; however, signals of harm have also been detected. Patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing liver transplantation have markedly different cardiovascular physiology than general surgical patients. If GDFT is proven to be feasible and safe in this patient group, then a multicentre trial to demonstrate efficacy and cost-effectiveness will be required. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, ID: ISRCTN10329248. Registered on 4 April 2016.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Student > Master 8 9%
Other 5 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 5%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 31 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Psychology 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 40 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,770,584
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#557
of 1,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,856
of 351,444 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 351,444 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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