↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with chronic kidney disease: patient selection and special considerations

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 239)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
9 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
Title
Direct oral anticoagulants in patients with chronic kidney disease: patient selection and special considerations
Published in
International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/ijnrd.s105771
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jens Lutz, Kerstin Jurk, Helmut Schinzel

Abstract

Many patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) receive anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy due to atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, thromboembolic disease, or peripheral artery disease. The treatment usually includes vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and/or platelet aggregation inhibitors. The direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) inhibiting factor Xa or thrombin represent an alternative for VKAs. In patients with acute and chronic kidney disease, caution is warranted, as DOACs can accumulate as they are partly eliminated by the kidneys. Thus, they can potentially increase the bleeding risk in patients with CKD. In patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) above 60 mL/min, DOACs can be used safely with greater efficacy and safety as compared to VKAs. In patients with CKD 3, DOACs are as effective as VKAs with a lower bleeding rate. The more the renal function declines, the lower is the advantage of DOACs over VKAs. Thus, use of DOACs should be avoided in patients with an eGFR below 30 mL/min, particularly, the compounds with a high renal elimination. Available data suggest that DOACs can also be used safely in older patients. In this review, use of DOACs in comparison with VKAs, heparins, and heparinoids, together with special considerations in patients with impaired renal function will be discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 15%
Other 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 33 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 43 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 11 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,753,689
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease
#8
of 239 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,358
of 316,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 239 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. 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 316,532 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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