↓ Skip to main content

Neuroprotective Drugs in Infants With Severe Congenital Heart Disease: A Systematic Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Neuroprotective Drugs in Infants With Severe Congenital Heart Disease: A Systematic Review
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00521
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raymond Stegeman, Kaya D. Lamur, Agnes van den Hoogen, Johannes M. P. J. Breur, Floris Groenendaal, Nicolaas J. G. Jansen, Manon J. N. L. Benders

Abstract

Background: Perinatal and perioperative brain injury is a fundamental problem in infants with severe congenital heart disease undergoing neonatal cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. An impaired neuromotor and neurocognitive development is encountered and associated with a reduction in quality of life. New neuroprotective drugs during surgery are described to reduce brain injury and improve neurodevelopmental outcome. Therefore, our aim was to provide a systematic review and best-evidence synthesis on the effects of neuroprotective drugs on brain injury and neurodevelopmental outcome in congenital heart disease infants requiring cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library (PRISMA statement). Search terms were "infants," "congenital heart disease," "cardiac surgery," "cardiopulmonary bypass," and "neuroprotective drug." Data describing the effects on brain injury and neurodevelopmental outcome were extracted. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Two reviewers independently screened sources, extracted data and scored bias. Disagreements were resolved by involving a third researcher. Results: The search identified 293 studies of which 6 were included. In total 527 patients with various congenital heart diseases participated with an average of 88 infants (13-318) per study. Allopurinol, sodium nitroprusside, erythropoietin, ketamine, dextromethorphan and phentolamine were administered around cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Allopurinol showed less seizures, coma, death and cardiac events in hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) infants (OR: 0.44; 95%-CI:0.21-0.91). Sodium nitroprusside resulted in lower post cardiopulmonary bypass levels of S100ß in infants with transposition of the great arteries after 24 (p < 0.01) and 48 (p = 0.04) h of treatment. Erytropoietin, ketamine and dextromethorphan showed no neuroprotective effects. Phentolamine led to higher S100ß-levels and cerebrovascular resistance after rewarming and at the end of surgery (both p < 0.01). Risk of bias varied between studies, including low (sodium nitroprusside, phentolamine), moderate (ketamine, dextromethorphan), and high (erytropoietin, allopurinol) quality. Conclusions: Allopurinol seems promising for future trials in congenital heart disease infants to reduce brain injury given the early neuroprotective effects in hypoplastic left heart syndrome infants. Larger well-designed trials are needed to assess the neuroprotective effects of sodium nitroprusside, erytropoietin, ketamine and dextromethorphan. Future neuroprotective studies in congenital heart disease infants should not only focus on the perioperative period, however also on the perinatal period, since significant brain injury already exists before surgery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 15%
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 22 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Psychology 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 25 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,281,082
of 25,381,864 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#5,332
of 14,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,288
of 334,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#111
of 315 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,864 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,493 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 334,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 315 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.