↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Risk of Venous Thromboembolism Following Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Exchange: an Analysis of 23,000 Hospitalized Patients

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% 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 (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
Title
Risk of Venous Thromboembolism Following Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Exchange: an Analysis of 23,000 Hospitalized Patients
Published in
American Journal of Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.01.017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vineet Chopra, Scott Kaatz, Paul Grant, Lakshmi Swaminathan, Tanya Boldenow, Anna Conlon, Steven J. Bernstein, Scott A. Flanders

Abstract

Catheter exchange over a guidewire is frequently performed for malfunctioning peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs). Whether such exchanges are associated with venous thromboembolism is not known. We performed a retrospective cohort study to assess the association between PICC exchange and risk of thromboembolism. Adult hospitalized patients that received a PICC during clinical care one of 51 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety consortium were included. The primary outcome was hazard of symptomatic venous thromboembolism (radiographically confirmed upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) in those that underwent PICC exchange vs. those that did not. Of 23,010 patients that underwent PICC insertion in the study, 589 patients (2.6%) experienced a PICC exchange. Almost half of all exchanges were performed for catheter dislodgement or occlusion. A total of 480 patients (2.1%) experienced PICC-associated deep vein thrombosis. The incidence of deep vein thrombosis was greater in those that underwent PICC exchange vs. those that did not (3.6% vs. 2.0%, p<0.001). Median time to thrombosis was shorter among those that underwent exchange compared vs. those that did not (5 vs. 11 days, p=0.02). Following adjustment, PICC exchange was independently associated with two-fold greater risk of thrombosis (hazard ratio [HR]=1.98, 95%CI=1.37-2.85) vs. no exchange. The effect size of PICC exchange on thrombosis was second in magnitude to device lumens (HR=2.06 [95%CI=1.59-2.66] and HR=2.31 [95%CI=1.6-3.33] for double- and triple lumen devices, respectively). Guidewire exchange of PICCs may be associated with increased risk of thrombosis. As some exchanges may be preventable, consideration of risks and benefits of exchanges in clinical practice is needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 tweeters 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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 50%
Unknown 2 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 2 50%
Unknown 2 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#556,172
of 11,642,880 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Medicine
#301
of 5,505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,508
of 301,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Medicine
#7
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,642,880 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 301,644 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 102 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 93% of its contemporaries.