↓ Skip to main content

Application of updated guidelines on diastolic dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
Title
Application of updated guidelines on diastolic dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13613-017-0342-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J. Clancy, Timothy Scully, Michel Slama, Stephen Huang, Anthony S. McLean, Sam R. Orde

Abstract

Left ventricular diastolic dysfunction is suggested to be associated with higher mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock, yet the methods of diagnosis described in the literature are often inconsistent. The recently published 2016 American Society of Echocardiography and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (ASE/EACVI) guidelines offer the opportunity to apply a simple pragmatic diagnostic algorithm for the detection of diastolic dysfunction; however, it has not been tested in this cohort. We sought to assess the applicability in septic patients of recently published 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines on diastolic dysfunction compared with the 2009 ASE guidelines. Our hypothesis was that there would be poor agreement in classifying patients. Prospective observational study includes patients identified as having severe sepsis and septic shock. Patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography on day 1 and day 3 of their ICU admission. Patients with normal and abnormal (ejection fraction < 52%) systolic function had their diastolic function stratified according to both the 2009 ASE and 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines. On day 1 echocardiography, of the 62 patients analysed, 37 (60%) had diastolic dysfunction according to the 2016 ASE/EACVI guideline with a further 23% having indeterminate diastolic function, compared to the 2009 ASE guidelines where only 13 (21%) had confirmed diastolic dysfunction with 46 (74%) having indeterminate diastolic dysfunction. On day 3, of the 55 patients studied, 22 patients (40%) were defined as having diastolic dysfunction, with 6 (11%) having indeterminate diastolic dysfunction according to the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines, compared to the 2009 guidelines where 11 (20%) were confirmed to have diastolic dysfunction and 41 (75%) had indeterminate diastolic function. Systolic dysfunction was identified in 18 of 62 patients (29%) on day 1 and 18 of 55 (33%) on day 3. These patients were classified as having abnormal diastolic function in 94 and 89% with the 2016 guidelines on day 1 and day 3, respectively, compared with 50 and 28% using the 2009 guidelines. The 2016 guidelines had less patients with indeterminate diastolic function on days 1 and 3 (11 and 6%) compared to the 2009 guidelines (50 and 72%). Normal systolic function was identified in 44 patients on day 1 and 37 on day 3. In this group, abnormal diastolic function was present in 45 and 54% on days 1 and 3 according to the 2016 ASE/EACVI guidelines, compared with 9 and 16% using the 2009 guidelines, respectively. In those with normal systolic function, the 2016 guidelines had less indeterminate patients with 30 and 16% on days 1 and 3, respectively, compared to 84 and 76% in the 2009 guidelines. The 2016 ASE/EACVI diastolic function guidelines identify a significantly higher incidence of dysfunction in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock compared to the previous 2009 guidelines. Although the new guidelines seem to be an improvement, issues remain with the application of guidelines using traditional measures of diastolic dysfunction in this cohort.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 14%
Student > Postgraduate 7 11%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 22 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 52%
Engineering 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 19 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 December 2020.
All research outputs
#7,697,099
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#659
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,527
of 443,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 443,225 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.