↓ Skip to main content

Pseudo-subarachnoid haemorrhage due to chronic hypoxaemia: case report and review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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.
Title
Pseudo-subarachnoid haemorrhage due to chronic hypoxaemia: case report and review of the literature
Published in
BMC Neurology, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12883-014-0219-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maximilian Patzig, Christoph Laub, Hendrik Janssen, Lorenz Ertl, Gunther Fesl

Abstract

BackgroundThe specificity of computed tomography (CT) for subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) is very high. However, physicians should be aware of rare false positive findings, also referred to as ¿pseudo-SAH¿. We present an unusual case in which such a finding was caused by chronic hypoxaemia.Case presentationA 37-year-old male Caucasian patient presented with headaches. His CT-scan showed multiple confluent subarachnoid hyperattenuations, which mimicked SAH. However, the headache was chronic and had no features typical for SAH. The patient suffered from severe chronic hypoxaemia due to congenital heart failure. On CT-angiography diffuse intracranial vessel proliferation was found and laboratory results revealed a highly raised level of haematocrit, which had both probably developed as compensatory mechanisms. A combination of these findings explained the subarachnoid hyperdensities. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed no signs of SAH and visualized hypoxaemia in cerebral veins. A diagnosis of pseudo-SAH was made. The patient¿s symptoms were likely due to a secondary headache attributed to hypoxia and/or hypercapnia. Therapy was symptomatic.ConclusionsSevere chronic hypoxaemia should be recognised as a rare cause of pseudo-SAH. Clinical evaluation and MRI help differentiate SAH from pseudo-SAH.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 25%
Student > Bachelor 3 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 17%
Other 1 8%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 67%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Unknown 2 17%

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 19 November 2014.
All research outputs
#3,669,958
of 4,527,185 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#825
of 903 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,334
of 138,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#29
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,527,185 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 903 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 138,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.