↓ Skip to main content

Alternative solution for ex vivo lung perfusion, experimental study on donated human lungs non-accepted for transplantation.

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Alternative solution for ex vivo lung perfusion, experimental study on donated human lungs non-accepted for transplantation.
Published in
Acta Cirurgica Brasileira, May 2015
DOI 10.1590/s0102-865020150050000008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernandes, Lucas Matos, Mariani, Alessandro Wasum, Medeiros, Israel Lopes de, Samano, Marcos Naoyuki, Abdalla, Luís Gustavo, Correia, Aristides Tadeu, Nepomuceno, Natália Aparecida, Canzian, Mauro, Pêgo-Fernandes, Paulo Manuel

Abstract

To evaluate a new perfusate solution to be used for ex vivo lung perfusion. Randomized experimental study using lungs from rejected brain-dead donors harvested and submitted to 1 hour of ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) using mainstream solution or the alternative. From 16 lungs blocs tested, we found no difference on weight after EVLP: Steen group (SG) = 1,097±526g; Alternative Perfusion Solution (APS) = 743±248g, p=0.163. Edema formation, assessed by Wet/dry weigh ratio, was statistically higher on the Alternative Perfusion Solution group (APS = 3.63 ± 1.26; SG = 2.06 ± 0.28; p = 0.009). No difference on PaO2 after EVLP (SG = 498±37.53mmHg; APS = 521±55.43mmHg, p=0.348, nor on histological analyses: pulmonary injury score: SG = 4.38±1.51; APS = 4.50±1.77, p=0.881; apoptotic cells count after perfusion: SG = 2.4 ± 2.0 cells/mm2; APS = 4.8 ± 6.9 cells/mm2; p = 0.361). The ex vivo lung perfusion using the alternative perfusion solution showed no functional or histological differences, except for a higher edema formation, from the EVLP using Steen Solution(r) on lungs from rejected brain-dead donors.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 55%
Engineering 2 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 24%

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 30 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,158,620
of 20,475,924 outputs
Outputs from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#29
of 52 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,845
of 262,202 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Cirurgica Brasileira
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,475,924 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 52 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.9. 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 262,202 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.