↓ Skip to main content

Fluid therapy in the perioperative setting—a clinical review

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
400 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 therapy in the perioperative setting—a clinical review
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40560-016-0154-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anders Winther Voldby, Birgitte Brandstrup

Abstract

Perioperative hypovolemia and fluid overload have effects on both complications following surgery and on patient survival. Therefore, the administration of intravenous fluids before, during, and after surgery at the right time and in the right amounts is of great importance. This review aims to analyze the literature concerning perioperative fluid therapy in abdominal surgery and to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice. Preoperative oral or intravenous administration of carbohydrate containing fluids has been shown to improve postoperative well-being and muscular strength and to reduce insulin resistance. Hence, the intake of fluid (preferably containing carbohydrates) should be encouraged up to 2 h prior to surgery in order to avoid dehydration. Excessive intravenous fluid administration adds to tissue inflammation and edema formation, thereby compromising tissue healing. During major abdominal surgery a "zero-balance" intraoperative fluid strategy aims at avoiding fluid overload (and comparable to the so-called restrictive approach) as well as goal-directed fluid therapy (GDT). Both proved to significantly reduce postoperative complications when compared to "standard fluid therapy". Trials comparing "restrictive" or zero-balance and GDT have shown equal results, as long as fluid overload is avoided in the GDT group as well (categorized as "zero-balance GDT"). It is possible that high-risk surgical patients, such as those undergoing acute surgery, may benefit from the continuous monitoring of circulatory status that the GDT provides. Data on this group of patients is not available at present, but trials are ongoing. In elective surgery, the zero-balance approach has shown to reduce postoperative complications and is easily applied for most patients. It is less expensive and simpler than the zero-balance GDT approach and therefore recommended in this review. In outpatient surgery, 1-2 L of balanced crystalloids reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting and improves well-being.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 400 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 388 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 56 14%
Student > Master 49 12%
Researcher 43 11%
Student > Postgraduate 39 10%
Student > Bachelor 39 10%
Other 82 21%
Unknown 92 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 233 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 1%
Other 19 5%
Unknown 108 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 23 July 2016.
All research outputs
#2,274,421
of 25,292,646 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#108
of 576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,737
of 276,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#5
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 276,230 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.