↓ Skip to main content

Rare central venous catheter malposition – an ultrasound-guided approach would be helpful: a case report

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Rare central venous catheter malposition – an ultrasound-guided approach would be helpful: a case report
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13256-016-1026-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keisuke Kumada, Nobuo Murakami, Hideshi Okada, Izumi Toyoda, Shinji Ogura, Hiroshi Kondo, Atsuhiro Fukuda

Abstract

A central venous catheter enables the measurement of hemodynamic variations, such as accurate central venous pressure; catheter malposition may induce potentially fatal complications. This case report describes a rare central venous catheter tip malposition in the right internal mammary artery. A 56-year-old Japanese woman who presented with severe pneumonia secondary to scleroderma was treated under ventilator support because of acute respiratory failure. A right central venous catheter was inserted using a landmark technique to monitor central venous pressure and administer medications. However, central venous waveforms detected by the catheter using a pressure lot transducer were later found to be absent. Further imaging studies, including plain radiography, computed tomography, and angiography, confirmed central venous catheter malposition in the internal mammary artery. Her right internal mammary artery was embolized using two interlocking detachable coils, and the central venous catheter was removed from her internal mammary artery without further complications. Internal mammary artery malposition is a rare but potentially lethal complication of central venous catheter catheterization; however, caution should be taken regarding the assessment of risk factors and management of a severe complication. An ultrasound-guided approach would be helpful.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 29%
Student > Bachelor 1 14%
Lecturer 1 14%
Professor 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 86%
Neuroscience 1 14%

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 22 September 2016.
All research outputs
#9,071,167
of 11,329,665 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#935
of 1,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,736
of 258,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#36
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,329,665 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,684 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 258,152 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 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.