↓ Skip to main content

Successful Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in a Sevoflurane Anaesthetized Horse That Suffered Cardiac Arrest at Recovery

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, June 2018
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
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Successful Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in a Sevoflurane Anaesthetized Horse That Suffered Cardiac Arrest at Recovery
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00138
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clara Conde Ruiz, Stéphane Junot

Abstract

A 17-year-old mare undergoing dental surgery suffered a cardiac arrest while being transferred from the surgical theatre to the recovery box. This complication was diagnosed early, thus allowing a prompt start to the cardiopulmonary resuscitation maneuvers. External thoracic compressions, intermittent positive pressure ventilation, and adrenaline administration were at the core of this successful resuscitation. Although it was not possible to confirm the cause of cardiac arrest in this horse, a Bezold-Jarisch reflex due to potential decrease on venous return because of postural change and drug interactions was hypothesized. Based on this report, it appears advisable to smoothly change the position of anaesthetized patient; furthermore, the administration of drugs affecting cardiovascular hemodynamics or sympatho-vagal balance to animals while changing their recumbency should be avoided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 14%
Researcher 4 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 11 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 10%
Engineering 2 7%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 38%
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 01 July 2018.
All research outputs
#14,417,376
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#2,333
of 6,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,886
of 328,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#55
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 328,678 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 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.