↓ Skip to main content

Radiological Diagnosis and Management of Epistaxis

Overview of attention for article published in CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Radiological Diagnosis and Management of Epistaxis
Published in
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00270-013-0776-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonín Krajina, Viktor Chrobok

Abstract

The majority of episodes of spontaneous posterior epistaxis treated with embolisation are idiopathic in nature. The angiographic findings are typically normal. Specific angiographic signs are rare and may include the following: a tumour blush, telangiectasia, aneurysm, and/or extravasation. Selective internal carotid artery (ICA) angiography may show rare causes of epistaxis, such as traumatic or mycotic aneurysms, which require different treatment approaches. Complete bilateral selective external and internal carotid angiograms are essential to evaluation. The images should be analysed for detection of central retinal blush in the external carotid artery (ECA) and anastomoses between the branches of the ECA and ICA. Monocular blindness and stroke are two of the most severe complications. Embolisation aims to decrease flow to the bleeding nasal mucosa while avoiding necrosis of the nasal skin and palate mucosa. Embolisation is routinely performed with a microcatheter positioned in the internal maxillary artery distal to the origin of the meningeal arteries. A guiding catheter should be placed in the proximal portion of the ECA to avoid vasospasm. Embolisation with microparticles is halted when the peripheral branches of the sphenopalatine artery are occluded. The use of coils is not recommended because recurrent epistaxis may occur due to proximal embolization; moreover, the option of repeat distal embolisation is lost. The success rate of embolisation therapy (accounting for late recurrence of bleeding) varies between 71 and 94 %. Results from endoscopic surgery are quite comparable. When epistaxis is refractory to nasal packing or endoscopic surgery, embolisation is the treatment of choice in some centres.

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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 14 18%
Other 10 13%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 65%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Energy 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 20 26%
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 29 July 2014.
All research outputs
#18,375,064
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#2,109
of 2,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,263
of 211,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#20
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,356 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 211,448 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.