↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

ECMO as an effective rescue therapeutic for fulminant myocarditis complicated with refractory cardiac arrest

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
ECMO as an effective rescue therapeutic for fulminant myocarditis complicated with refractory cardiac arrest
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, November 2017
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s147845
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ya-Ting Li, Li-Fen Yang, Zhuang-Gui Chen, Li Pan, Meng-Qi Duan, Yan Hu, Cheng-bin Zhou, Yu-Xiong Guo

Abstract

Fulminant myocarditis (FM) is a life-threatening disease in children. With a rapid, progressive course of deterioration, it causes refractory cardiorespiratory failure even with optimal clinical intervention. We present the case of a 9-year-old girl with FM complicated by cardiogenic shock, malignant arrhythmia, and refractory cardiac arrest. She received effective cardiopulmonary resuscitation, therapeutic hypothermia, and other supportive treatments. However, the patient rapidly worsened into pulseless ventricular tachycardia and refractory cardiac arrest. Therefore, we performed extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) to establish spontaneous circulation after the failure of standard resuscitation measures. The girl recovered with intact cardiac and neurocognitive functions after continued ECMO treatment for 221 hours. Therefore, ECMO is an effective rescue therapeutics for FM, especially when complicated with refractory cardiac arrest.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 29%
Student > Postgraduate 4 24%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Materials Science 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 24%

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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,834,181
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#644
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,611
of 378,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#16
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 378,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.