↓ Skip to main content

Microcirculatory perfusion shows wide inter-individual variation and is important in determining shock reversal during resuscitation in a porcine experimental model of complex traumatic hemorrhagic…

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Microcirculatory perfusion shows wide inter-individual variation and is important in determining shock reversal during resuscitation in a porcine experimental model of complex traumatic hemorrhagic shock
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40635-016-0088-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sam D. Hutchings, David N. Naumann, Sarah Watts, Callie Wilson, Clare Burton, Julia Wendon, Emrys Kirkman

Abstract

Traumatic hemorrhagic shock (THS) is a leading cause of preventable death following severe traumatic injury. Resuscitation of THS is typically targeted at blood pressure, but the effects of such a strategy on systemic and microcirculatory flow remains unclear. Failure to restore microcirculatory perfusion has been shown to lead to poor outcomes in experimental and clinical studies. Systemic and microcirculatory variables were examined in a porcine model of complex THS, in order to investigate inter-individual variations in flow and the effect of microcirculatory perfusion on reversal of the shock state. Baseline standard microcirculatory variables were obtained for 22 large white pigs using sublingual incident dark field (IDF) video-microscopy. All animals were subjected to a standardised hind-limb injury followed by a controlled haemorrhage of approximately 35 % of blood volume (shock phase). This was followed by 60 min of fluid resuscitation with either 0.9 % saline or component blood products and a target SBP of 80 mmHg (early resuscitation phase). All animals were then given blood products to a target SBP of 110 mmHg for 120 min (mid-resuscitation phase), and a further 100 min (late resuscitation phase). IDF readings were obtained at the midpoint of each of these phases. Cardiac output was measured using a pulmonary artery catheter. Animals were divided into above average (A) and below average (B) perfused vessel density (PVD) groups based on the lowest recorded PVD measurement taken during the shock and early resuscitation phases. There was minimal inter-individual variation in blood pressure but wide variation of both systemic and microcirculatory flow variables during resuscitation. During shock and early resuscitation, group A (n = 10) had a mean PVD of 10.5 (SD ± 2.5) mm/mm(2) and group B (n = 12) 5.5 (SD ± 4.1) mm/mm(2). During the later resuscitation phases, group A maintained a significantly higher PVD than group B. Group A initially had a higher cardiac output, but the difference between the groups narrowed as resuscitation progressed. At the end of resuscitation, group A had significantly lower plasma lactate, higher lactate clearance, lower standard base deficit and smaller mixed venous-arterial CO2 gradient. There was no significant difference in blood pressure between the two groups at any stage. There was a wide variation in both macro- and microcirculatory flow variables in this pressure-targeted experimental model of THS resuscitation. Early changes in microvascular perfusion appear to be key determinants in the reversal of the shock state during resuscitation. Microcirculatory flow parameters may be more reliable markers of physiological insult than pressure-based parameters and are potential targets for goal-directed resuscitation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 15%
Other 5 13%
Student > Master 5 13%
Professor 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,984,762
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#234
of 448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,865
of 352,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 352,727 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.