↓ Skip to main content

Surgical management of superior vena cava syndrome following pacemaker lead infection: a case report and review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Surgical management of superior vena cava syndrome following pacemaker lead infection: a case report and review of the literature
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1749-8090-9-107
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Kokotsakis, Umar AR Chaudhry, Dimitris Tassopoulos, Leanne Harling, Hutan Ashrafian, Michail Vernandos, Meletis Kanakis, Thanos Athanasiou

Abstract

Superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome is a known but rare complication of pacemaker lead implantation, accounting for approximately less than 0.5% of cases. Its pathophysiology is due to either infection or endothelial mechanical stress, causing inflammation and fibrosis leading to thrombosis, and therefore stenosis of the SVC. Due to the various risks including thrombo-embolic complications and the need to provide symptomatic relief, medical and surgical interventions are sought early. We present the case of a 48-year Caucasian male who presented with localised swelling and pain at the site of pacemaker implantation. Inflammatory markers were normal, but diagnostic imaging revealed three masses along the pacemaker lead passage. A surgical approach using cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest was used to remove the vegetations. Culture from the vegetations showed Staphylococcus epidermidis. The technique presented here allowed for safe and effective removal of both the thrombus and infected pacing leads, with excellent exposure and minimal post-procedure complications.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 5%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 38 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 22%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 9 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 December 2022.
All research outputs
#5,917,516
of 23,383,275 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#91
of 1,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,714
of 229,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,383,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,266 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 229,715 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.