| Title |
Risk Factors for Aspiration Pneumonia After Endoscopic Hemostasis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10620-015-3941-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Koki Kawanishi, Jun Kato, Nobuo Toda, Mari Yamagami, Tomoharu Yamada, Kentaro Kojima, Takamasa Ohki, Michiharu Seki, Kazumi Tagawa |
| Abstract |
Although all types of endoscopic procedures harbor risk of aspiration, little is understood about risk factors for aspiration pneumonia developing after endoscopic hemostasis. The present study aimed to identify risk factors for aspiration pneumonia after endoscopic hemostasis. Charts from consecutive patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding that had been treated by endoscopic hemostasis at a single center between January 2004 and January 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient information and clinical characteristics including cause of hemorrhage, established prognostic scales, laboratory data, comorbidities, medications, duration of endoscopic hemostasis, vital signs, sedative use, and the main operator during the procedure were compared between patients who developed aspiration pneumonia and those who did not. Aspiration pneumonia developed in 24 (4.8 %) of 504 patients after endoscopic hemostasis. Endotracheal intubation was required for three of them, and one died of the complication. Multivariate analysis revealed that age >75 years (odds ratio (OR) 4.4; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.5-13.6; p = 0.0073), procedural duration >30 min (OR 5.6; 95 % CI 1.9-18.2; p = 0.0023), hemodialysis (OR 3.6; 95 % CI 1.2-11; p = 0.024), and a history of stroke (OR 3.8; 95 % CI 1-14; p = 0.041) were independent risk factors for developing aspiration pneumonia. Specific risk factors for aspiration pneumonia after endoscopic hemostasis were identified. Endoscopists should carefully consider aspiration pneumonia when managing older patients who are on hemodialysis, have a history of stroke, and undergo a longer procedure. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 21% |
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 23% |
| Unknown | 9 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 62% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 11 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 21 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,617,099
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#295
of 4,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,080
of 288,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#2
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. 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 288,145 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.