↓ Skip to main content

Effect of intravenous fluid volume on biomarkers of endothelial glycocalyx shedding and inflammation during initial resuscitation of sepsis

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
Title
Effect of intravenous fluid volume on biomarkers of endothelial glycocalyx shedding and inflammation during initial resuscitation of sepsis
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, April 2023
DOI 10.1186/s40635-023-00508-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Macdonald, Erika Bosio, Gerben Keijzers, Sally Burrows, Moira Hibbs, Helen O’Donoghue, David Taylor, Ashes Mukherjee, Frances Kinnear, Lisa Smart, Juan-Carlos Ascencio-Lane, Edward Litton, John Fraser, Nathan I. Shapiro, Glenn Arendts, Daniel Fatovich

Abstract

To investigate the effect of IV fluid resuscitation on endothelial glycocalyx (EG) shedding and activation of the vascular endothelium and inflammation. A planned biomarker sub-study of the REFRESH trial in which emergency department (ED) patients) with suspected sepsis and hypotension were randomised to a restricted fluid/early vasopressor regimen or IV fluid resuscitation with later vasopressors if required (usual care). Blood samples were collected at randomisation (T0) and at 3 h (T3), 6 h (T6)- and 24 h (T24) for measurement of a range of biomarkers if EG shedding, endothelial cell activation and inflammation. Blood samples were obtained in 95 of 99 enrolled patients (46 usual care, 49 restricted fluid). Differences in the change in biomarker over time between the groups were observed for Hyaluronan (2.2-fold from T3 to T24, p = 0.03), SYN-4 (1.5-fold from T3 to T24, P = 0.01) and IL-6 (2.5-fold from T0 to T3, p = 0.03). No difference over time was observed between groups for the other biomarkers. A consistent signal across a range of biomarkers of EG shedding or of endothelial activation or inflammation was not demonstrated. This could be explained by pre-existing EG shedding or overlap between the fluid volumes administered in the two groups in this clinical trial. Trial registration Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN126160000006448 Registered 12 January 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 33%
Student > Bachelor 1 17%
Unspecified 1 17%
Unknown 2 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 50%
Sports and Recreations 1 17%
Unspecified 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 July 2023.
All research outputs
#3,880,932
of 24,294,767 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#104
of 494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,640
of 396,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#10
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,294,767 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 396,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 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 50% of its contemporaries.