↓ Skip to main content

First do no harm: surrogate endpoints and the lesson of β-agonists in acute lung injury

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
First do no harm: surrogate endpoints and the lesson of β-agonists in acute lung injury
Published in
Critical Care, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11392
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pradeep H Lakshminarayana, Jeremy M Kahn

Abstract

EXPANDED ABSTRACT: CITATION: Matthay MA, Brower RG, Carson S, Douglas IS, Eisner M, Hite D, Holets S, Kallet RH, Liu KD, MacIntyre N, Moss M, Schoenfeld D, Steingrub J, Thompson BT: Randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of an aerosolized β-agonist for treatment of acute lung injury. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2011, 184:561-568. BACKGROUND: β2-Adrenergic receptor agonists accelerate resolution of pulmonary edema in experimental and clinical studies of acute lung injury (ALI). METHODS: Objective: To determine whether an aerosolized β2-agonist would improve clinical outcomes in patients with ALI.Design: Multi-center, phase III randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.Setting: 33 hospitals participating National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Clinical Trials Network.Subjects: Patients who were intubated and receiving mechanical ventilation, had bilateral infiltrates consistent with edema on frontal chest radiograph, had a ratio of PaO2 to FIO2 (fraction of inspired oxygen) of 300 or less, and not had clinical evidence of left atrial hypertension. A maximum enrolment of 1,000 patients was planned.Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive aerosolized albuterol (5 mg) or saline placebo every 4 hours for up to 10 days.Outcomes: The primary outcome variable was ventilator-free days (VFD). Secondary outcome measures included mortality before hospital discharge on day 60 and day 90, the number of intensive care unit (ICU)-free days and the number of organ failure-free days. RESULTS: There were 282 patients enrolled before the trial was stopped for futility after the second interim analysis. The VFDs difference with albuterol treatment was unfavourable by -2.2 days, well past the futility boundary of -0.4 VFDs. VFDs were not significantly different between the albuterol and placebo groups (means of 14.4 and 16.6 days, respectively; 95% confidence interval for the difference, -4.7 to 0.3 days; P = 0.087). Rates of death before hospital discharge and the number of organ failure-free days were also not significantly different between the two groups. The number of ICU-free days was lower in the albuterol group in comparison with the placebo group (means of 13.5 and 16.2 days respectively; 95% confidence intervals for the mean difference, -4.9 to -0.4 days; P = 0.023). Overall, heart rates were significantly higher in the albuterol group by approximately 5 beats/minute in the first 2 days after randomization (P < 0.05), but rates of new onset atrial fibrillation (10% in both groups) and other cardiac dysrhythmias were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that aerosolized albuterol does not improve clinical outcomes in ALI patients. Routine use of β2 agonist therapy in mechanically ventilated ALI patients cannot be recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Postgraduate 6 14%
Other 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 52%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,169,949
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,987
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,491
of 177,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#63
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 177,442 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.