↓ Skip to main content

Early goal-directed therapy using a physiological holistic view: the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK—a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, April 2018
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 Mendeley
Title
Early goal-directed therapy using a physiological holistic view: the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK—a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13613-018-0398-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Glenn Hernández, Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti, Gustavo Ospina-Tascón, Fernando Godinho Zampieri, Arnaldo Dubin, F. Javier Hurtado, Gilberto Friedman, Ricardo Castro, Leyla Alegría, Maurizio Cecconi, Jean-Louis Teboul, Jan Bakker, The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Study Investigators

Abstract

Septic shock is a highly lethal condition. Early recognition of tissue hypoperfusion and its reversion are key factors for limiting progression to multiple organ dysfunction and death. Lactate-targeted resuscitation is the gold-standard under current guidelines, although it has several pitfalls including that non-hypoxic sources of lactate might predominate in an unknown proportion of patients. Peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation might provide a real-time response to increases in flow that could lead to a more timely decision to stop resuscitation, thus avoiding fluid overload and the risks of over-resuscitation. This article reports the rationale, study design and analysis plan of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK Study. ANDROMEDA-SHOCK is a randomized controlled trial which aims to determine if a peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation is associated with lower 28-day mortality compared to a lactate-targeted resuscitation in patients with septic shock with less than 4 h of diagnosis. Both groups will be treated with the same sequential approach during the 8-hour study period pursuing normalization of capillary refill time versus normalization or a decrease of more than 20% of lactate every 2 h. The common protocol starts with fluid responsiveness assessment and fluid loading in responders, followed by a vasopressor and an inodilator test if necessary. The primary outcome is 28-day mortality, and the secondary outcomes are: free days of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy and vasopressor support during the first 28 days after randomization; multiple organ dysfunction during the first 72 h after randomization; intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay; and all-cause mortality at 90-day. A sample size of 422 patients was calculated to detect a 15% absolute reduction in mortality in the peripheral perfusion group with 90% power and two-tailed type I error of 5%. All analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. If peripheral perfusion-targeted resuscitation improves 28-day mortality, this could lead to simplified algorithms, assessing almost in real-time the reperfusion process, and pursuing more physiologically sound objectives. At the end, it might prevent the risk of over-resuscitation and lead to a better utilization of intensive care unit resources. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03078712 (registered retrospectively March 13th, 2017).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 159 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Postgraduate 18 11%
Other 15 9%
Student > Master 15 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 36 23%
Unknown 43 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Computer Science 2 1%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 48 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 16 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,454,558
of 24,795,084 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#316
of 1,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,138
of 331,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#9
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,795,084 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. 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 331,965 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 72% of its contemporaries.