↓ Skip to main content

The Association Between PICC Use and Venous Thromboembolism in Upper and Lower Extremities

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge
37

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
The Association Between PICC Use and Venous Thromboembolism in Upper and Lower Extremities
Published in
American Journal of Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.amjmed.2015.03.028
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Todd Greene, Scott A. Flanders, Scott C. Woller, Steven J. Bernstein, Vineet Chopra

Abstract

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are associated with upper extremity-deep vein thrombosis. Whether they are also associated with lower extremity-deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism is unknown. We examined the risk of venous thromboembolism in deep veins of the arm, leg and chest following PICC placement. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective, cohort study of 76,242 hospitalized medical patients from 48-Michigan hospitals. PICC presence, comorbidities, venous thrombosis risk factors, and thrombotic events within 90-days from hospital admission were ascertained by phone and record review. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to examine the association between PICC placement and 90-day hazard of upper- and lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, adjusting for patient-level characteristics and natural clustering within hospitals. 3,790 patients received a PICC during hospitalization. From hospital admission to 90-days, 876 thromboembolic events (208 upper-extremity, 372 lower-extremity deep vein thromboses and 296 pulmonary emboli) were identified. Following risk-adjustment, PICC use was independently associated with all-cause venous thromboembolism (HR=3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.59-3.85), upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis (HR=10.49, 95%CI 7.79-14.11) and lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis (HR=1.48, 95%CI=1.02-2.15). PICC use was not associated with pulmonary embolism (HR=1.34, 95%CI=0.86-2.06). Results were robust to sensitivity analyses incorporating receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis during hospitalization. PICC use is associated with upper- and lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis. Weighing the thrombotic risks conferred by PICCs against clinical benefits appears necessary.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
France 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 67 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 16%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Unspecified 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Other 26 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 24%
Unspecified 12 17%
Engineering 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 3 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 10 February 2016.
All research outputs
#380,207
of 12,293,535 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Medicine
#185
of 5,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,957
of 226,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Medicine
#4
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,293,535 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,689 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 226,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.