↓ Skip to main content

Post-intubation tracheal stenosis after management of complicated aortic dissection: a case series

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Post-intubation tracheal stenosis after management of complicated aortic dissection: a case series
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13019-015-0357-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jia Liu, Chun-Peng Zhang, Ye Li, Su Dong

Abstract

Patients undergoing total aortic arch replacement or aortic dissecting aneurysmectomy are generally managed with medications to control hypotension and blood coagulation to minimize mortality and morbidity. However, prolonged mechanical ventilation via tracheal intubation increases the risk of tracheal stenosis in such patients. We present 2 cases (a 49-year-old woman and a 62-year-old man) of post-intubation tracheal stenosis occurring after surgery for the correction of complicated aortic dissection; both cases were successfully managed by tracheal cryotherapy. Continuous monitoring of cuff pressure and regular cuff palpation are necessary to minimize the incidence of tracheal stenosis. If the patients have concomitant local or systemic infection, adequate preventive measures should be taken to reduce the incidence of post-intubation tracheal stenosis. Tracheal cryotherapy is recommendable for the management of post-intubation tracheal stenosis.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 4 14%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Librarian 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 10 34%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 45%
Engineering 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 21%

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 27 April 2016.
All research outputs
#6,542,030
of 8,607,055 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#169
of 319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,741
of 247,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#9
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,607,055 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 319 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 247,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.