↓ Skip to main content

Defining Prolonged Dwell Time: When Are Advanced Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Techniques Necessary?

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 X users

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Defining Prolonged Dwell Time: When Are Advanced Inferior Vena Cava Filter Retrieval Techniques Necessary?
Published in
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions, June 2017
DOI 10.1161/circinterventions.116.003957
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Despite growth in placement of retrievable inferior vena cava filters, retrieval rates remain low. Filters with extended implantation times present a challenge to retrieval, where standard techniques often fail. The development of advanced retrieval techniques has positively impacted retrieval of retrievable inferior vena cava filters with prolonged dwell times; however, there is no precise definition of the time point when advanced techniques become necessary. We aim to define prolonged retrievable inferior vena cava filters dwell time by determining the inflection point when the risk of standard retrieval technique failure increases significantly, necessitating advanced retrieval techniques to maintain overall technical success of retrieval. From January 2009 to April 2015, 762 retrieval procedures were identified from a prospectively acquired database. We assessed patient age/sex, filter dwell time, procedural technical success, the use of advanced techniques, and procedure-related adverse events. Overall retrieval success rate was 98% (n=745). When standard retrieval techniques failed, advanced techniques were used; this was necessary 18% of the time (n=138). Logistic regression identified that dwell time was the only risk factor for failure of standard retrieval technique (odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.10; P<0.001). Spline function regression analysis demonstrated that if dwell time exceeded 7 months, the risk of standard technique failure was 40.9%. Adverse events occurred at a rate of 2% (n=18; 15 minor and 3 major). The necessity of advanced techniques to maintain technical success of retrieval increases with dwell time. Patients with retrievable inferior vena cava filters in place beyond 7 months may benefit from referral to centers with expertise in advanced filter retrieval.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 18%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 12 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Computer Science 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Unknown 17 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,403,764
of 34,413,214 outputs
Outputs from Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
#341
of 1,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,418
of 364,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions
#5
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,413,214 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,801 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 364,684 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.