↓ Skip to main content

Sharp Central Venous Recanalization in Hemodialysis Patients: A Single-Institution Experience

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Sharp Central Venous Recanalization in Hemodialysis Patients: A Single-Institution Experience
Published in
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00270-015-1270-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammad Arabi, Ishtiaq Ahmed, Abdulaziz Mat’hami, Dildar Ahmed, Naveed Aslam

Abstract

We report our institutional experience with sharp central venous recanalization in chronic hemodialysis patients who failed standard techniques. Since January 2014, a series of seven consecutive patients (four males and three females), mean age 35 years (18-65 years), underwent sharp central venous recanalization. Indications included obtaining hemodialysis access (n = 6) and restoration of superior vena cava (SVC) patency to alleviate occlusion symptoms and restore fistula function (n = 1). The transseptal needle was used for sharp recanalization in six patients, while it could not be introduced in one patient due to total occlusion of the inferior vena cava. Instead, transmediastinal SVC access using Chiba needle was obtained. Technical success was achieved in all cases. SVC recanalization achieved symptoms' relief and restored fistula function in the symptomatic patient. One patient underwent arteriovenous fistula creation on the recanalized side 3 months after the procedure. The remaining catheters were functional at median follow-up time of 9 months (1-14 months). Two major complications occurred including a right hemothorax and a small hemopericardium, which were managed by covered stent placement across the perforated SVC. Sharp central venous recanalization using the transseptal needle is feasible technique in patients who failed standard recanalization procedures. The potential high risk of complications necessitates thorough awareness of anatomy and proper technical preparedness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 17%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Other 9 30%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Psychology 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 17%
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 24 February 2020.
All research outputs
#17,778,896
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#1,847
of 2,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,188
of 390,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#15
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,363 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 390,452 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.