Defibrillation can be successfully provided by the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) without the leads. In contrast, traditional ICDs require leads that can cause central venous stenosis, lead-induced endocarditis, and carry the risk of tricuspid regurgitation by valve adhesion, perforation, coaptation interference, or entanglement. Central venous stenosis, infection, and tricuspid regurgitation are all critically important considerations in hemodialysis patients. Recent reports are supporting the use of subcutaneous ICDs in renal patients maintained on long-term hemodialysis. This article provides the risks associated with leads of traditional defibrillators and raises awareness of the subcutaneous ICD and their benefits for hemodialysis patients.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,802,492
of 28,124,291 outputs
Outputs from Hemodialysis International
#498
of 784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,775
of 337,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Hemodialysis International
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,124,291 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 784 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 337,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
