↓ Skip to main content

Fluid management in acute lung injury and ards

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
Title
Fluid management in acute lung injury and ards
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, May 2011
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-1-16
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antoine Roch, Christophe Guervilly, Laurent Papazian

Abstract

ARDS is particularly characterized by pulmonary edema caused by an increase in pulmonary capillary permeability. It is considered that limiting pulmonary edema or accelerating its resorption through the modulation of fluid intake or oncotic pressure could be beneficial. This review discusses the principal clinical studies that have made it possible to progress in the optimization of the fluid state during ARDS. Notably, a randomized, multicenter study has suggested that fluid management with the goal to obtain zero fluid balance in ARDS patients without shock or renal failure significantly increases the number of days without mechanical ventilation. On the other hand, it is accepted that patients with hemodynamic failure must undergo early and adapted vascular filling. Liberal and conservative filling strategies are therefore complementary and should ideally follow each other in time in the same patient whose hemodynamic state progressively stabilizes. At present, although albumin treatment has been suggested to improve oxygenation transiently in ARDS patients, no sufficient evidence justifies its use to mitigate pulmonary edema and reduce respiratory morbidity. Finally, the resorption of alveolar edema occurs through an active mechanism, which can be pharmacologically upregluated. In this sense, the use of beta-2 agonists may be beneficial but further studies are needed to confirm preliminary promising results.

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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 3%
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Bulgaria 1 <1%
Unknown 118 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 25 20%
Other 23 18%
Researcher 21 17%
Student > Master 15 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 9%
Other 41 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 111 89%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 4 3%
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 30 March 2020.
All research outputs
#13,876,020
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#726
of 1,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,772
of 111,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#9
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 111,055 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.