↓ Skip to main content

The Diagnostic Yield of Repeated Endoscopic Evaluation in Patients with Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Left Ventricular Assist Devices

Overview of attention for article published in Digestive Diseases and Sciences, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
The Diagnostic Yield of Repeated Endoscopic Evaluation in Patients with Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Left Ventricular Assist Devices
Published in
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10620-015-4028-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hassan K. Dakik, Alyson A. McGhan, Shih-Ting Chiu, Chetan B. Patel, Carmelo A. Milano, Joseph G. Rogers, Shein-Chung Chow, Daniel M. Wild

Abstract

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly common in patients with advanced heart failure. GI bleeding (GIB) occurs in 20-30 % of these patients and can arise anywhere in the GI tract. Given the high rates of GIB in this population, our aim was to determine the diagnostic yield of repeated endoscopic evaluation in these patients. We performed a retrospective review of all 257 patients who had LVADs placed between 2008 and 2013 at Duke University Hospital and identified all patients who underwent any endoscopic evaluation for GIB. Of the 257 patients with LVADs placed, 78 (30 %) underwent at least one endoscopy for GIB. A source was identified in 36 % of cases, most commonly angioectasias (53.6 %). Treatment was performed in 67.9 % of patients and hemostasis was achieved in all. 64.1 % of the cohort underwent a second endoscopy for GIB. 42.9 % of these exams revealed a bleeding source. Endoscopic treatment was employed in 76.2 %. 38.5 % of the cohort underwent a third endoscopic exam for bleeding and a source was identified in 53.3 % with angioectasias remaining most common (56.3 %). By Fisher's exact and Chi-square testing, only the presence of a bleeding source (p = 0.0034) and use of hemostatic therapy (p = 0.0127) on the index examination were significantly associated with re-bleeding. GIB is common in patients with LVADs. The diagnostic and therapeutic yield of endoscopy is remains high with repeated interventions. Despite these high yields, a large portion of the cohort requires repeated interventions for recurrent bleeding.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 17%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Lecturer 1 6%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 44%
Decision Sciences 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Unknown 8 44%
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 15 July 2017.
All research outputs
#16,991,331
of 24,975,845 outputs
Outputs from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#3,168
of 4,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#245,716
of 407,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#31
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,975,845 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,578 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 407,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.