You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Contemporary Trends and Comparative Outcomes With Adjunctive Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement in Patients Undergoing Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis for Deep Vein Thrombosis in the United States Insights From the National Inpatient Sample
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.04.048 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Othman S. Akhtar, Vladimir Lakhter, Chad J. Zack, Hafiz Hussain, Vikas Aggarwal, Estefania Oliveros, Yevgeniy Brailovsky, Huaqing Zhao, Ravi Dhanisetty, Resmi A. Charalel, Matthew Zhao, Riyaz Bashir |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to investigate the contemporary trends and comparative effectiveness of adjunctive inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) placement in patients undergoing catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) for treatment of proximal lower extremity or caval deep vein thrombosis. CDT is being increasingly used in the management of proximal deep vein thrombosis. Although a significant number of patients treated with CDT undergo adjunctive IVCF placement, the benefit of this practice remains unknown. The National Inpatient Sample database was used to identify all patients with proximal or caval deep vein thrombosis who underwent CDT (with and without adjunctive IVCF placement) in the United States between January 2005 and December 2013. A propensity score-matching algorithm was then used to derive 2 matched groups of patients (IVCF and no IVCF) for comparative outcomes (mortality and major and minor bleeding) and resource use analysis. Of the 7,119 patients treated with CDT, 2,421 (34%) received IVCFs. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (0.7% vs 1.0%; p = 0.20), procedure-related hemorrhage (1.4% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.23), or intracranial hemorrhage (0.7% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.70) between the IVCF (n = 2,259) and no-IVCF (n = 2,259) groups, respectively. Patients undergoing IVCF placement had higher rates of hematoma (3.4% vs 2.1%; p = 0.009), higher in-hospital charges ($104,049 ± 75,572 vs. $92,881 ± 80,194; p < 0.001) and increased length of stay (7.3 ± 5.6 days vs. 6.9 ± 6.9 days; p = 0.046) compared with the no-IVCF group. This nationwide observational study suggests that one-third of all patients undergoing CDT receive IVCFs. IVCF use was not associated with a decrease in in-hospital mortality but was associated with higher inpatient charges and longer length of stay. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 75% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 12 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 29% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 54% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 76. 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 March 2020.
All research outputs
#563,353
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#119
of 4,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,299
of 341,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#4
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,032 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 341,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 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 95% of its contemporaries.