↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Position paper for the organization of ECMO programs for cardiac failure in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
99 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Position paper for the organization of ECMO programs for cardiac failure in adults
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00134-018-5064-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Darryl Abrams, A. Reshad Garan, Akram Abdelbary, Matthew Bacchetta, Robert H. Bartlett, James Beck, Jan Belohlavek, Yih-Sharng Chen, Eddy Fan, Niall D. Ferguson, Jo-anne Fowles, John Fraser, Michelle Gong, Ibrahim F. Hassan, Carol Hodgson, Xiaotong Hou, Katarzyna Hryniewicz, Shingo Ichiba, William A. Jakobleff, Roberto Lorusso, Graeme MacLaren, Shay McGuinness, Thomas Mueller, Pauline K. Park, Giles Peek, Vin Pellegrino, Susanna Price, Erika B. Rosenzweig, Tetsuya Sakamoto, Leonardo Salazar, Matthieu Schmidt, Arthur S. Slutsky, Christian Spaulding, Hiroo Takayama, Koji Takeda, Alain Vuylsteke, Alain Combes, Daniel Brodie, for The International ECMO Network (ECMONet) and The Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO), Abrams, Darryl, Garan, A. Reshad, Abdelbary, Akram, Bacchetta, Matthew, Bartlett, Robert H., Beck, James, Belohlavek, Jan, Chen, Yih-Sharng, Fan, Eddy, Ferguson, Niall D., Fowles, Jo-anne, Fraser, John, Gong, Michelle, Hassan, Ibrahim F., Hodgson, Carol, Hou, Xiaotong, Hryniewicz, Katarzyna, Ichiba, Shingo, Jakobleff, William A., Lorusso, Roberto, MacLaren, Graeme, McGuinness, Shay, Mueller, Thomas, Park, Pauline K., Peek, Giles, Pellegrino, Vin, Price, Susanna, Rosenzweig, Erika B., Sakamoto, Tetsuya, Salazar, Leonardo, Schmidt, Matthieu, Slutsky, Arthur S., Spaulding, Christian, Takayama, Hiroo, Takeda, Koji, Vuylsteke, Alain, Combes, Alain, Brodie, Daniel

Abstract

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used increasingly for both respiratory and cardiac failure in adult patients. Indications for ECMO use in cardiac failure include severe refractory cardiogenic shock, refractory ventricular arrhythmia, active cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest, and acute or decompensated right heart failure. Evidence is emerging to guide the use of this therapy for some of these indications, but there remains a need for additional evidence to guide best practices. As a result, the use of ECMO may vary widely across centers. The purpose of this document is to highlight key aspects of care delivery, with the goal of codifying the current use of this rapidly growing technology. A major challenge in this field is the need to emergently deploy ECMO for cardiac failure, often with limited time to assess the appropriateness of patients for the intervention. For this reason, we advocate for a multidisciplinary team of experts to guide institutional use of this therapy and the care of patients receiving it. Rigorous patient selection and careful attention to potential complications are key factors in optimizing patient outcomes. Seamless patient transport and clearly defined pathways for transition of care to centers capable of providing heart replacement therapies (e.g., durable ventricular assist device or heart transplantation) are essential to providing the highest level of care for those patients stabilized by ECMO but unable to be weaned from the device. Ultimately, concentration of the most complex care at high-volume centers with advanced cardiac capabilities may be a way to significantly improve the care of this patient population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 99 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 26%
Unspecified 8 23%
Professor 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 49%
Unspecified 10 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Computer Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. 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 07 August 2018.
All research outputs
#198,817
of 11,610,043 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#91
of 2,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,341
of 329,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#13
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,610,043 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,944 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 329,457 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.