| Title |
Evaluation of an ADVanced Organ Support (ADVOS) system in a two-hit porcine model of liver failure plus endotoxemia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40635-017-0144-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ahmed Al-Chalabi, Edouard Matevossian, Anne von Thaden, Catherine Schreiber, Peter Radermacher, Wolfgang Huber, Aritz Perez Ruiz de Garibay, Bernhard Kreymann |
| Abstract |
Novel extracorporeal procedures are constantly being developed and evaluated for use in patients with sepsis. Preclinical evaluation of such procedures usually requires testing in large animal models. In the present work, the safety and efficacy of a recently developed ADVanced Organ Support (ADVOS) system in a newly developed large animal two-hit model of liver failure combined with endotoxemia were tested. After establishing the model in more than 50 animals, a randomized study was performed. An inflammatory cholestatic liver injury was initially provoked in pigs. Three days after surgery, endotoxin was gradually administered during 7½ h. Animals were randomized to receive standard medical treatment either with (ADVOS group, n = 5) or without ADVOS (control group, n = 5). The ADVOS treatment was started 2½ h after endotoxemia and continued for 7 h. Survival, cardiovascular, respiratory, renal, liver, coagulation, and cerebral parameters were analyzed. Three days after surgery, cholestatic injury resulted in hyperbilirubinemia [5.0 mg/dl (IQR 4.3-5.9 mg/dl)], hyperammonemia [292 μg/dl (IQR 291-296 μg/dl)], leukocytosis [20.2 10(3)/μl (IQR 17.7-21.8 10(3)/μl)], and hyperfibrinogenemia [713 mg/dl (IQR 654-803 mg/dl)]. After endotoxemia, the ADVOS procedure stabilized cardiovascular, respiratory, and renal parameters and eliminated surrogate markers as bilirubin [2.3 (IQR 2.3-3.0) vs. 5.5 (IQR 4.6-5.6) mg/dl, p = 0.001] and creatinine [1.4 (IQR 1.1-1.7) vs. 2.3 (IQR 2.1-3.1) mg/dl, p = 0.01]. Mortality: All animals in the ADVOS group survived, while all animals in the control group expired during the 10-h observation period (p = 0.002). No adverse events related to the procedure were observed. The ADVOS procedure showed a promising safety and efficacy profile and improved survival in a sepsis-like animal model with dysfunction of multiple organs. An amelioration of major organ functions (heart and lung) combined with removal of markers for kidney and liver function was observed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 29% |
| India | 1 | 14% |
| Russia | 1 | 14% |
| Belgium | 1 | 14% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Unknown | 5 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 12% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 4 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 24 August 2017.
All research outputs
#5,557,390
of 22,986,950 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#122
of 449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,075
of 313,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,986,950 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 313,617 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
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. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.