↓ Skip to main content

Internal jugular vein versus subclavian vein as the percutaneous insertion site for totally implantable venous access devices: a meta-analysis of comparative studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Internal jugular vein versus subclavian vein as the percutaneous insertion site for totally implantable venous access devices: a meta-analysis of comparative studies
Published in
BMC Cancer, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2791-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaoyong Wu, Jingxiu Huang, Zongming Jiang, Zhimei Huang, Handong Ouyang, Li Deng, Wenqian Lin, Jin Guo, Weian Zeng

Abstract

A totally implantable venous access device (TIVAD) provides reliable, long-term vascular access and improves patients' quality of life. The wide use of TIVADs is associated with important complications. A meta-analysis was undertaken to compare the internal jugular vein (IJV) with the subclavian vein (SCV) as the percutaneous access site for TIVAD to determine whether IJV has any advantages. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies assessing the two access sites, IJV and SCV, were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and OVID EMB Reviews from their inception to December 2015. Random-effects models were used in all analyses. The endpoints evaluated included TIVAD-related infections, catheter-related thrombotic complications, and major mechanical complications. Twelve studies including 3905 patients published between 2008 and 2015, were included. Our meta-analysis showed that incidences of TIVAD-related infections (odds ratio [OR] 0.71, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.48-1.04, P = 0.081) and catheter-related thrombotic complications (OR 0.76, 95 % CI 0.38-1.51, P = 0.433) were not significantly different between the two groups. However, compared with SCV, IJV was associated with reduced risks of total major mechanical complications (OR 0.38, 95 % CI 0.24-0.61, P < 0.001). More specifically, catheter dislocation (OR 0.43, 95 % CI 0.22-0.84, P = 0.013) and malfunction (OR 0.42, 95 % CI 0.28-0.62, P < 0.001) were more prevalent in the SCV than in the IJV group; however, the risk of catheter fracture (OR 0.47, 95 % CI 0.21-1.05, P = 0.065) were not significantly different between the two groups. Sensitivity analyses using fixed-effects models showed a decreased risk of catheter fracture in the IJV group. The IJV seems to be a safer alternative to the SCV with lower risks of total major mechanical complications, catheter dislocation, and malfunction. However, a large-scale and well-designed RCT comparing the complications of each access site is warranted before the IJV site can be unequivocally recommended as a first choice for percutaneous implantation of a TIVAD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 36%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Psychology 1 5%
Unknown 6 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 August 2020.
All research outputs
#4,629,441
of 18,687,462 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#1,095
of 6,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,699
of 276,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,687,462 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,771 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 276,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them