↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparison of the clinical features and outcomes of infective endocarditis between hemodialysis and non-hemodialysis patients

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of the clinical features and outcomes of infective endocarditis between hemodialysis and non-hemodialysis patients
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2017
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s135262
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ching-Chung Hsiao, Cheng-Hao Weng, Yi-Jung Li, Hsin-Hsu Wu, Yung-Chang Chen, Yu-Ming Chen, Hsiang-Hao Hsu, Ya-Chung Tian

Abstract

Hemodialysis (HD) patients are more susceptible to infective endocarditis (IE) due to the increased risk of bacterial invasion through intravascular access. However, it remains unclear whether the causative organisms and outcomes of IE in HD patients differ from those in non-HD patients. This study clarified the differences in clinical presentation and outcomes between HD and non-HD patients. At our hospital, we performed a retrospective study of 39 HD and 51 non-HD patients with echocardiography-confirmed IE between June 2000 and February 2007. No differences in sex, intravenous drug use, previous diagnosis of congestive heart failure, and previous valvular surgery were observed between these two groups. The number of patients with diabetic mellitus in these two groups was significantly different (28.2% HD vs 5.9% non-HD patients). The C-reactive protein levels in the two groups were not significantly different. By contrast, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate was significantly higher in the HD patients (HD vs non-HD: 87.2±33.32 vs 52.96±28.19). The incidence of IE involving the mitral valve (MV; 45.1%) or the aortic valve (AV; 43.1%) was similar among the non-HD patients, whereas a preference of IE involving the MV (79.5%) over the AV (15.4%) was noted among the HD patients. The HD patients had a significantly higher Staphylococcus aureus infection rate (HD: 46.2%; non-HD: 27.5%). The proportion of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA; 83.8%) infection accounting for S. aureus IE in the HD group was higher than that (28.6%) in the non-HD group. The in-hospital mortality rate did not differ between the two groups. In conclusion, compared with non-HD patients, a propensity of IE involving the MV and a higher MRSA infection rate were observed in HD patients. The in-hospital mortality rate of echocardiography-confirmed IE did not differ between the two groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 12 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 55%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 June 2017.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1,204
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,174
of 324,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#20
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. 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 324,557 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 22 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.