| Title |
A global perspective on vasoactive agents in shock
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Intensive Care Medicine, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00134-018-5242-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Djillali Annane, Lamia Ouanes-Besbes, Daniel de Backer, Bin DU, Anthony C. Gordon, Glenn Hernández, Keith M. Olsen, Tiffany M. Osborn, Sandra Peake, James A. Russell, Sergio Zanotti Cavazzoni |
| Abstract |
We set out to summarize the current knowledge on vasoactive drugs and their use in the management of shock to inform physicians' practices. This is a narrative review by a multidisciplinary, multinational-from six continents-panel of experts including physicians, a pharmacist, trialists, and scientists. Vasoactive drugs are an essential part of shock management. Catecholamines are the most commonly used vasoactive agents in the intensive care unit, and among them norepinephrine is the first-line therapy in most clinical conditions. Inotropes are indicated when myocardial function is depressed and dobutamine remains the first-line therapy. Vasoactive drugs have a narrow therapeutic spectrum and expose the patients to potentially lethal complications. Thus, these agents require precise therapeutic targets, close monitoring with titration to the minimal efficacious dose and should be weaned as promptly as possible. Moreover, the use of vasoactive drugs in shock requires an individualized approach. Vasopressin and possibly angiotensin II may be useful owing to their norepinephrine-sparing effects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 233 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 37 | 16% |
| Spain | 14 | 6% |
| Colombia | 11 | 5% |
| United States | 8 | 3% |
| Ecuador | 7 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 7 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 3% |
| Chile | 6 | 3% |
| Peru | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 30 | 13% |
| Unknown | 101 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 196 | 84% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 27 | 12% |
| Scientists | 9 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 345 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 345 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 43 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 42 | 12% |
| Researcher | 33 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 8% |
| Other | 79 | 23% |
| Unknown | 90 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 191 | 55% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 1% |
| Engineering | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 24 | 7% |
| Unknown | 95 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 126. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#336,472
of 25,712,965 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#295
of 5,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,349
of 343,845 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#12
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,712,965 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,473 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 343,845 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.