| Title |
Predictors of haemodynamic instability during the changeover of norepinephrine infusion pumps
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-016-0139-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martin Cour, Thomas Bénet, Romain Hernu, Marie Simon, Thomas Baudry, Philippe Vanhems, Laurent Argaud |
| Abstract |
Changeovers of norepinephrine infusion pumps (CNIPs) frequently lead to haemodynamic instability. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for haemodynamic instability associated with CNIP, independent of the method used to perform the relay. We performed a prospective study, in a university-affiliated intensive care unit. Over a 1-year period, all adult patients who had at least one CNIP were included. CNIPs were automatically performed using smart pumps, in accordance with a standardised protocol. CNIP-induced haemodynamic instability was defined as a variation in mean arterial pressure (MAP) >25 %. A multivariate mixed effects logistic regression was fitted to assess the factors associated with CNIP-induced haemodynamic instability. From the 118 patients included in the study, 764 CNIPs were analysed. Most of the patients were treated with norepinephrine for septic shock of medical origin (n = 83, 70 %). Haemodynamic instability occurred 114 times (15 %) in 63 patients (53 %). Among the risk factors identified by the univariate analysis (age, heart rate, dose of norepinephrine infused, and change in the concentration of the vasoactive drug; p < 0.05), change in the norepinephrine concentration was the only independent risk factor for CNIP-induced haemodynamic instability identified in the multivariate analysis (adjusted OR 11.8, 95 % CI 7.2-19.5, p < 0.001). Changes in the norepinephrine concentration during CNIPs lead to a high risk of haemodynamic instability, while the clinical severity of patients, as well as the doses of norepinephrine, was not. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 19% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 10% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 13 | 42% |
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 27 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,379,687
of 23,613,071 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#909
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,333
of 300,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#25
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,613,071 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 300,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.