↓ Skip to main content

Personalizing blood pressure management in septic shock

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, November 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 Mendeley
Title
Personalizing blood pressure management in septic shock
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13613-015-0085-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryotaro Kato, Michael R. Pinsky

Abstract

This review examines the available evidence for targeting a specific mean arterial pressure (MAP) in sepsis resuscitation. The clinical data suggest that targeting an MAP of 65-70 mmHg in patients with septic shock who do not have chronic hypertension is a reasonable first approximation. Whereas in patients with chronic hypertension, targeting a higher MAP of 80-85 mmHg minimizes renal injury, but it comes with increased risk of arrhythmias. Importantly, MAP alone should not be used as a surrogate of organ perfusion pressure, especially under conditions in which intracranial, intra-abdominal or tissue pressures may be elevated. Organ-specific perfusion pressure targets include 50-70 mmHg for the brain based on trauma brain injury as a surrogate for sepsis, 65 mmHg for renal perfusion and >50 mmHg for hepato-splanchnic flow. Even at the same MAP, organs and regions within organs may have different perfusion pressure and pressure-flow relationships. Thus, once this initial MAP target is achieved, MAP should be titrated up or down based on the measures of organ function and tissue perfusion.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Czechia 2 1%
United States 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 161 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 24 15%
Other 20 12%
Student > Master 20 12%
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Other 42 25%
Unknown 23 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 112 68%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Engineering 5 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 25 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 11 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,432,226
of 19,044,106 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#159
of 883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,692
of 246,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#4
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,044,106 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 883 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 246,237 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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 94% of its contemporaries.