↓ Skip to main content

New-onset supraventricular arrhythmia during septic shock: prevalence, risk factors and prognosis

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
New-onset supraventricular arrhythmia during septic shock: prevalence, risk factors and prognosis
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13613-015-0069-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aurélien Seemann, Florence Boissier, Keyvan Razazi, Guillaume Carteaux, Nicolas de Prost, Christian Brun-Buisson, Armand Mekontso Dessap

Abstract

The aims of this study were to prospectively assess the prevalence of sustained (lasting more than 30 s) new-onset supraventricular arrhythmia (NOSVA) during septic shock, identify the associated factors (including septic myocardial dysfunction), and evaluate its impact on hemodynamics and prognosis. Patients with a diagnosis of septic shock were screened in a medical intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital center in France with a continuous 12-lead EKG for the occurrence of NOSVA. Biological and clinical data (including septic myocardial dysfunction characterized by echocardiography) were collected. We also assessed the hemodynamic tolerance and prognosis of NOSVA. Among the 71 septic shock episodes assessed during the study, NOSVA occurred in 30 [prevalence of 42 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 30-53 %]. Among all recorded factors, only renal failure (as assessed by renal SOFA score at day 1) was associated with NOSVA and this difference persisted by multivariable analysis (odds ratio of 1.29, 95 % CI 1.03-1.62, p = 0.03). There was a significant increase in norepinephrine dosage during the first hour after SVA onset. NOSVA was associated with longer catecholamine use during septic shock as compared with patients in sinus rhythm, whereas ICU mortality was identical between groups. We found a high prevalence of sustained NOSVA during septic shock. NOSVA was not related to septic myocardial dysfunction, but rather to acute renal failure, raising the hypothesis of an acute renocardiac syndrome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 57%
Engineering 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 September 2015.
All research outputs
#20,292,660
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#955
of 1,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#230,286
of 274,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#14
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 274,417 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.