↓ Skip to main content

Anemia and red blood cell transfusion in critically ill cardiac patients

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
Title
Anemia and red blood cell transfusion in critically ill cardiac patients
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-4-16
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geneviève Du Pont-Thibodeau, Karen Harrington, Jacques Lacroix

Abstract

Anemia and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion occur frequently in hospitalized patients with cardiac disease. In this narrative review, we report the epidemiology of anemia and RBC transfusion in hospitalized adults and children (excluding premature neonates) with cardiac disease, and on the outcome of anemic and transfused cardiac patients. Both anemia and RBC transfusion are common in cardiac patients, and both are associated with mortality. RBC transfusion is the only way to rapidly treat severe anemia, but is not completely safe. In addition to hemoglobin (Hb) concentration, the determinant(s) that should drive a practitioner to prescribe a RBC transfusion to cardiac patients are currently unclear. In stable acyanotic cardiac patients, Hb level above 70 g/L in children and above 70 to 80 g/L in adults appears safe. In cyanotic children, Hb level above 90 g/L appears safe. The appropriate threshold Hb level for unstable cardiac patients and for children younger than 28 days is unknown. The optimal transfusion strategy in cardiac patients is not well characterized. The threshold at which the risk of anemia outweighs the risk of transfusion is not known. More studies are needed to determine when RBC transfusion is indicated in hospitalized patients with cardiac disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 4%
United States 2 2%
Unknown 79 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 18%
Student > Postgraduate 10 12%
Student > Master 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 23 27%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 19 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 December 2014.
All research outputs
#5,667,475
of 22,757,090 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#523
of 1,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,970
of 227,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,090 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 1,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 227,118 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.