Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantitative assessment of the microcirculation in healthy volunteers and in patients with septic shock*

Kanoore Edul, Vanina S., Enrico, Carolina, Laviolle, Bruno, Risso Vazquez, Alejandro, Ince, Can, Dubin, Arnaldo·2012·Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The microcirculation of septic patients has been characterized only semiquantitatively. Our goal was to characterize the sublingual microcirculation in healthy volunteers and patients with septic shock quantitatively. Our hypotheses were that 1) hyperdynamic blood flow is absent in septic shock; 2) nonsurvivors show more severe alterations than survivors; and 3) quantitative and semiquantitative microcirculatory parameters have a similar performance. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: Teaching intensive care unit in a university-affiliated hospital. SUBJECTS: Twenty-five normal volunteers and 25 patients with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The sublingual microcirculation was evaluated by means of sidestream dark field imaging. Semiquantitative and quantitative microcirculatory parameters were determined through the use of applied software. Septic patients showed decreased perfused capillary density (13.2±4.4 mm/mm² vs. 16.6±1.6 mm/mm²), proportion of perfused capillaries (0.78±0.23 vs. 1.00±0.01), microvascular flow index (2.15±0.61 vs. 2.97±0.03), and red blood cell velocity (830±183 µm/sec vs. 1332±187 µm/sec) along with increased heterogeneity flow index (1.64±1.14 vs. 0.25±0.19) compared with controls. No differences were found in total capillary density (16.9±2.2 vs. 16.7±1.6). Only 4% of capillaries analyzed showed red blood cell velocities>75th percentile of the velocities of the normal volunteers. The nonsurvivors exhibited decreased perfused capillary density, proportion of perfused capillaries, and microvascular flow index along with increased heterogeneity flow index compared with the survivors. The correlations between microvascular flow index and proportion of perfused capillaries, total capillary density and number of grid-crossing capillaries, and red blood cell velocities and microvascular flow index gave high R values (0.92, 0.65, and 0.52, respectively; p<.0001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: The main characteristics of sublingual microcirculation in patients with septic shock are hypoperfusion and increased flow heterogeneity. Hyperdynamic microvascular blood flow was not found. Nonsurvivors showed more severe alterations than survivors. Quantitative and semiquantitative microcirculatory variables displayed similar behaviors.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ccm.0b013e31823dae59

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
Kanoore Edul, V. S., Enrico, C., Laviolle, B., Risso Vazquez, A., Ince, C., & Dubin, A.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Published
2012-05
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
1443-1448
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2033070593
Cited by
274
References
1
FWCI
16.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantitative assessment of the microcirculation in healthy volunteers and in patients with septic shock*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ccm.0b013e31823dae59
The paper
Kanoore Edul, V. S., Enrico, C., Laviolle, B., Risso Vazquez, A., Ince, C., & Dubin, A. (2012). Quantitative assessment of the microcirculation in healthy volunteers and in patients with septic shock*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e31823dae59

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.