↓ Skip to main content

Balloon Blocking Technique (BBT) for Superselective Catheterization of Inaccessible Arteries with Conventional and Modified Techniques

Overview of attention for article published in CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Balloon Blocking Technique (BBT) for Superselective Catheterization of Inaccessible Arteries with Conventional and Modified Techniques
Published in
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00270-015-1271-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroyuki Morishita, Yoshito Takeuchi, Takaaki Ito, Natsuko Hayashi, Osamu Sato

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of the balloon blocking technique (BBT). The BBT was performed in six patients (all males, mean 73.5 years) in whom superselective catheterization for transcatheter arterial embolization by the conventional microcatheter techniques had failed due to anatomical difficulty, including targeted arteries originating steeply or hooked from parent arteries. All BBT procedures were performed using Seldinger's transfemoral method. Occlusive balloons were deployed and inflated at the distal side of the target artery branching site in the parent artery via transfemoral access. A microcatheter was delivered from a 5-F catheter via another femoral access and was advanced over the microguidewire into the target artery, under balloon blockage of advancement of the microguidewire into non-target branches. After the balloon catheter was deflated and withdrawn, optimal interventions were performed through the microcatheter. After success of accessing the targeted artery by BBT, optimal interventions were accomplished in all patients with no complications other than vasovagal hypotension, which responded to nominal therapy. The BBT may be useful in superselective catheterization of inaccessible arteries due to anatomical difficulties.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 17%
Other 2 17%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Lecturer 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%
Attention Score in Context

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 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,412,387
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#2,209
of 2,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,328
of 392,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,383 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 392,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.