↓ Skip to main content

Passive leg raise testing effectively reduces fluid administration in septic shock after correction of non-compliance to test results

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, January 2017
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
Title
Passive leg raise testing effectively reduces fluid administration in septic shock after correction of non-compliance to test results
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13613-016-0225-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arjanne Rameau, Eldert de With, Evert Christiaan Boerma

Abstract

Fluid resuscitation is considered a cornerstone of shock treatment, but recent data have underlined the potential hazards of fluid overload. The passive leg raise (PLR) test has been introduced as one of many strategies to predict 'fluid responsiveness.' The use of PLR testing is applicable to a wide range of clinical situations and has the potential to reduce fluid administration, since PLR testing is based upon (reversible) autotransfusion. Despite these theoretical advantages, data on the net effect on fluid balance as a result of PLR testing remain scarce. We performed a prospective single-center multi-step interventional study in patients with septic shock to evaluate the effect of implementation of PLR testing on the fluid balance (FB) 48 hours after ICU admission. All patients were equipped with a PiCCO(®) device for pulse contour analysis to guide fluid administration. An increase in stroke volume (SV) ≥ 10% was considered a positive test result. Before introduction of PLR testing, 21 patients were prospectively included in period 1 with a median FB of 4.8 [3.3-7.8]L. After an extensive training program, PLR testing was introduced and 20 patients were included in period 2. Median FB was 4.4 [3.3-7.5]L and did not differ from period 1 (p = 0.72). Further analysis revealed that non-compliance to the PLR test result was 44%. These findings were discussed with all ICU doctors and nurses. By consensus, non-compliance to the PLR test result was identified as the main reason for unsuccessful implementation of PLR testing. After this evaluation, 19 patients were included in period 3 under equal conditions as in period 2. In this period, median FB was 3.1 [1.5-4.9]L and significantly reduced in comparison with periods 1 and 2 (p = 0.016 and p = 0.023, respectively). Non-compliance was 9% and significantly lower than in period 2 (p = 0.009). Implementation of PLR testing in patients with septic shock reduced fluid administration in the first 48 hours of ICU admission significantly and substantially. To achieve this endpoint, substantial non-compliance of ICU team members had to be addressed. Fluid administration despite a negative PLR test was the most common form of non-compliance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 17%
Other 9 11%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 23 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 17 February 2019.
All research outputs
#2,859,716
of 24,066,486 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#361
of 1,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,417
of 428,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,066,486 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,102 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 428,377 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 86% 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 done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.