↓ Skip to main content

The effects of early high-volume hemofiltration on prolonged cardiac arrest in rats with reperfusion by cardiopulmonary bypass: a randomized controlled animal study

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
The effects of early high-volume hemofiltration on prolonged cardiac arrest in rats with reperfusion by cardiopulmonary bypass: a randomized controlled animal study
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40635-016-0101-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Koichiro Shinozaki, Joshua W. Lampe, Junhwan Kim, Tai Yin, Tong Da, Shigeto Oda, Hiroyuki Hirasawa, Lance B. Becker

Abstract

It is not yet clear whether hemofiltration can reduce blood cytokine levels sufficiently to benefit patients who suffer prolonged cardiac arrest (CA) treated with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). We sought to assess effects of high-volume and standard volume continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) on blood cytokine levels and survival in a rat model of prolonged CA treated with CPB. Sprague-Dawley male rats were subjected to 12 min of asphyxia to induce CA. CPB was initiated for resuscitation of animals and maintained for 30 min. Twenty-four rats were randomly assigned into three groups: without CVVH treatment (sham); standard volume CVVH at a filtration rate of 35-45 mL/kg/h; and high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF, 105-135 mL/kg/h). Hemofiltration was started simultaneously with CPB and maintained for 6 h. Plasma TNFα and IL-6 levels were measured at baseline, 0.5, 1, 2, 3, and 6 h after reperfusion. Survival time, neurological deficit score, and hemodynamic status were assessed. All animals survived over 6 h and died within 24 h. There were no significant differences in survival time (log-rank test, sham vs. CVVH; p = 0.49, sham vs. HVHF; p = 0.33) or neurological deficit scores (ANOVA, p = 0.14) between the groups. There were no significant differences in blood cytokine levels between the groups. Mean blood pressure in sham group animals increased to 1.5-fold higher than baseline levels at 30 min. HVHF significantly reduced blood pressure to 0.7-fold of sham group (p < 0.01). There was no improvement in mortality, neurological dysfunction, TNFα, or IL-6 levels in rats after prolonged CA with CPB on either hemofiltration group when compared to the sham group.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Student > Master 4 22%
Other 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 2 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 17%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Unknown 2 11%
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 30 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,471,305
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#324
of 448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,851
of 330,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 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 448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 330,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 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.