↓ Skip to main content

The effect of parenteral selenium on outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients following sepsis: a prospective randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, October 2015
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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
The effect of parenteral selenium on outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients following sepsis: a prospective randomized clinical trial
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13613-015-0071-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Legese Chelkeba, Arezoo Ahmadi, Mohammad Abdollahi, Atabak Najafi, Mohammad Hosein Ghadimi, Reza Mosaed, Mojtaba Mojtahedzadeh

Abstract

Sepsis and septic shock is characterized by oxidative stress that mainly promotes systemic inflammation and organ failure due to excessive free radical production and depletion of antioxidant defenses. Therefore, we investigated the effect of selenium administration on antioxidant status, levels of cytokines and clinical outcomes. This study was a prospective randomized control trial (RCT) whereby patients received selenium as sodium selenite (2 mg IV bolus followed by 1.5 mg continuous infusion for 14 days) plus standard therapy. The control group received standard therapy without selenium. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. The changes in the mean levels of glutathione peroxidase (GPX) activity, IL-6, IL-8 and IL-10, the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and other secondary endpoints were also recorded. VAP was broken down into early VAP and late VAP to see the clinical significance of each. We also recorded any adverse outcomes from selenium infusion. Over 24-month period, 54 patients were recruited and randomized and an intention to treat (ITT) principle was applied (selenium, n = 29; control, n = 25) in the final analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in 28-day mortality although it was lower in the selenium group compared with the control group: 9 (31 %) in the selenium versus 10 (40 %) in the control groups (p = 0.49). At day 0, GPX activity was 0.185 ± 0.3 versus 0.19 ± 0.3 U/mL (p = 0.9), day 3, GPX activity was 0.52 ± 0.5 versus 0.17 ± 0.2 U/mL (p = 0.02), at day 7 it was 0.55 ± 0.5 versus 0.24 ± 0.3 U/mL (p = 0.032), at day 10 it was 0.62 ± 0.7 versus 0.33 ± 0.4 U/mL (p = 0.048) and at day 14 it was 1.1 ± 1 versus 0.89 ± 1 U/mL (p = 0.70) for the selenium versus control groups, respectively. However, there were no significant differences between the mean plasma levels of all the three inflammatory cytokines at any point in time between the two groups. There was a significant reduction in occurrence of VAP in the selenium group compared with the control group (55.2 versus 84 %, p = 0.023), respectively. High-dose selenium administration within the time frame of early goal-directed therapy was not resulted in reduction of 28-day mortality, but increased the activity of glutathione peroxidase with no effect on the levels of inflammatory cytokines at any point in time in mechanically ventilated septic patients. However, selenium supplementation in mechanically ventilated patients following sepsis was associated with reduced occurrence of VAP. IRCT201212082887N4 at WHO Clinical Trial Registry, August 29, 2014.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Master 8 14%
Other 7 12%
Researcher 6 10%
Lecturer 5 8%
Other 17 29%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 13 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 10 August 2016.
All research outputs
#2,310,781
of 15,641,217 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#196
of 698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,513
of 251,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,641,217 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 251,779 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them