↓ Skip to main content

A fresh look at paralytics in the critically ill: real promise and real concern

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
A fresh look at paralytics in the critically ill: real promise and real concern
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-2-43
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Price, Nicholas J Kenyon, Nicholas Stollenwerk

Abstract

Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), or "paralytics," often are deployed in the sickest patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) when usual care fails. Despite the publication of guidelines on the use of NMBAs in the ICU in 2002, clinicians have needed more direction to determine which patients would benefit from NMBAs and which patients would be harmed. Recently, new evidence has shown that paralytics hold more promise when used in carefully selected lung injury patients for brief periods of time. When used in early acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), NMBAs assist to establish a lung protective strategy, which leads to improved oxygenation, decreased pulmonary and systemic inflammation, and potentially improved mortality. It also is increasingly recognized that NMBAs can cause harm, particularly critical illness polyneuromyopathy (CIPM), when used for prolonged periods or in septic shock. In this review, we address several practical considerations for clinicians who use NMBAs in their practice. Ultimately, we conclude that NMBAs should be considered a lung protective adjuvant in early ARDS and that clinicians should consider using an alternative NMBA to the aminosteroids in septic shock with less severe lung injury pending further studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 72 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 20%
Other 10 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 11%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Other 17 23%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 14 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 December 2012.
All research outputs
#18,465,704
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#914
of 1,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,296
of 173,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,046 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 173,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.