↓ Skip to main content

Fluid responsiveness in acute circulatory failure

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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 responsiveness in acute circulatory failure
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40560-015-0117-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmed Hasanin

Abstract

Although fluid resuscitation of patients having acute circulatory failure is essential, avoiding unnecessary administration of fluids in these patients is also important. Fluid responsiveness (FR) is defined as the ability of the left ventricle to increase its stroke volume (SV) in response to fluid administration. The objective of this review is to provide the recent advances in the detection of FR and simplify the physiological basis, advantages, disadvantages, and cut-off values for each method. This review also highlights the present gaps in literature and provides future thoughts in the field of FR. Static methods are generally not recommended for the assessment of FR. Dynamic methods for the assessment of FR depend on heart-lung interactions. Pulse pressure variation (PPV) and stroke volume variation (SVV) are the most famous dynamic measures. Less-invasive dynamic parameters include plethysmographic-derived parameters, variation in blood flow in large arteries, and variation in the diameters of central veins. Dynamic methods for the assessment of FR have many limitations; the most important limitation is spontaneous breathing activity. Fluid challenge techniques were able to overcome most of the limitations of the dynamic methods. Passive leg raising is the most popular fluid challenge method. More simple techniques have been recently introduced such as the mini-fluid challenge and 10-s fluid challenge. The main limitation of fluid challenge techniques is the need to trace the effect of the fluid challenges on SV (or any of its derivatives) using a real-time monitor. More research is needed in the field of FR taking into consideration not only the accuracy of the method but also the ease of implementation, the applicability on a wider range of patients, the time needed to apply each method, and the feasibility of its application by acute care physicians with moderate and low experience.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 1 1%
Unknown 94 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Student > Postgraduate 10 11%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Other 32 34%
Unknown 6 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 84%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Unknown 10 11%

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 25 November 2015.
All research outputs
#11,121,476
of 12,505,479 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#252
of 276 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#282,679
of 345,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#40
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,505,479 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 276 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. 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 345,143 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 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.