↓ Skip to main content

Preconditioning Shields Against Vascular Events in Surgery (SAVES), a multicentre feasibility trial of preconditioning against adverse events in major vascular surgery: study protocol for a…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 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
Preconditioning Shields Against Vascular Events in Surgery (SAVES), a multicentre feasibility trial of preconditioning against adverse events in major vascular surgery: study protocol for a randomised control trial
Published in
Trials, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0678-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donagh Healy, Mary Clarke-Moloney, Brendan Gaughan, Siobhan O’Daly, Derek Hausenloy, Faisal Sharif, John Newell, Martin O’Donnell, Pierce Grace, John F Forbes, Walter Cullen, Eamon Kavanagh, Paul Burke, Simon Cross, Joseph Dowdall, Morgan McMonagle, Greg Fulton, Brian J Manning, Elrasheid AH Kheirelseid, Austin Leahy, Daragh Moneley, Peter Naughton, Emily Boyle, Seamus McHugh, Prakash Madhaven, Sean O’Neill, Zenia Martin, Donal Courtney, Muhammed Tubassam, Sherif Sultan, Damian McCartan, Mekki Medani, Stewart Walsh

Abstract

Patients undergoing vascular surgery procedures constitute a 'high-risk' group. Fatal and disabling perioperative complications are common. Complications arise via multiple aetiological pathways. This mechanistic redundancy limits techniques to reduce complications that target individual mechanisms, for example, anti-platelet agents. Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) induces a protective phenotype in at-risk tissue, conferring protection against ischaemia-reperfusion injury regardless of the trigger. RIPC is induced by repeated periods of upper limb ischaemia-reperfusion produced using a blood pressure cuff. RIPC confers some protection against cardiac and renal injury during major vascular surgery in proof-of-concept trials. Similar trials suggest benefit during cardiac surgery. Several uncertainties remain in advance of a full-scale trial to evaluate clinical efficacy. We propose a feasibility trial to fully evaluate arm-induced RIPC's ability to confer protection in major vascular surgery, assess the incidence of a proposed composite primary efficacy endpoint and evaluate the intervention's acceptability to patients and staff. Four hundred major vascular surgery patients in five Irish vascular centres will be randomised (stratified for centre and procedure) to undergo RIPC or not immediately before surgery. RIPC will be induced using a blood pressure cuff with four cycles of 5 minutes of ischaemia followed by 5 minutes of reperfusion immediately before the start of operations. There is no sham intervention. Participants will undergo serum troponin measurements pre-operatively and 1, 2, and 3 days post-operatively. Participants will undergo 12-lead electrocardiograms pre-operatively and on the second post-operative day. Predefined complications within one year of surgery will be recorded. Patient and staff experiences will be explored using qualitative techniques. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients who develop elevated serum troponin levels in the first 3 days post-operatively. Secondary outcome measures include length of hospital and critical care stay, unplanned critical care admissions, death, myocardial infarction, stroke, mesenteric ischaemia and need for renal replacement therapy (within 30 days of surgery). RIPC is novel intervention with the potential to significantly improve perioperative outcomes. This trial will provide the first evaluation of RIPC's ability to reduce adverse clinical events following major vascular surgery. www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02097186 Date Registered: 24 March 2014.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 125 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 22%
Researcher 22 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 38 30%

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 22 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,933,276
of 9,098,986 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,031
of 2,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,740
of 232,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#100
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,098,986 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,523 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. 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 232,734 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.