↓ 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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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.

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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Denmark 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 27 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Master 5 16%
Other 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 48%
Physics and Astronomy 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 26%

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 26 September 2014.
All research outputs
#16,633,831
of 18,804,592 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#692
of 959 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,137
of 220,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,804,592 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 959 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. 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 220,318 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 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