↓ Skip to main content

Non-tunneled versus tunneled dialysis catheters for acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy: a prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nephrology, December 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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Non-tunneled versus tunneled dialysis catheters for acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy: a prospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Nephrology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12882-017-0760-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mallika L. Mendu, Megan F. May, Arnaud D. Kaze, Dionne A. Graham, Salena Cui, Margaret E. Chen, Naomi Shin, Ayal A. Aizer, Sushrut S. Waikar

Abstract

Acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy (AKI-RRT) is associated with high morbidity, mortality and resource utilization. The type of vascular access placed for AKI-RRT is an important decision, for which there is a lack of evidence-based guidelines. We conducted a prospective cohort study over a 16-month period with 154 patients initiated on AKI-RRT via either a non-tunneled dialysis catheter (NTDC) or a tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) at an academic hospital. We compared differences in renal replacement delivery and mechanical and infectious outcomes between NTDCs and TDCs. Patients who received TDCs had significantly better RRT delivery, both with continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) and intermittent hemodialysis (IHD), compared to patients who received NTDCs; these findings were confirmed after multivariable adjustment for AKI-specific disease severity score, history of chronic kidney disease, renal consult team, and AKI cause. In CVVH and IHD, the median venous and arterial blood flow pressures were significantly higher with TDCs compared to NTDCs (p < 0.001). Additionally for CVVH, the median number of interruptions per catheter was higher with NTDCs compared to TDCs (Rate Ratio (RR) 2.7; p < 0.001), and for IHD, a higher median blood flow was seen with TDCs (p < 0.001). There were a significantly higher number of mechanical complications with NTDCs (RR 13.6 p = 0.001). No significant difference was observed between TDCs and NTDCs for positive blood cultures per catheter. Compared to NTDCs, TDCs for patients with AKI-RRT had improved RRT delivery and fewer mechanical complications. Initial TDC placement for AKI-RRT should be considered when not clinically contraindicated given the potential for improved RRT delivery and outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 12%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 49%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 21 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 05 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,863,083
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nephrology
#283
of 2,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,899
of 445,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nephrology
#7
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,761 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 445,792 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.