↓ Skip to main content

Patient-Specific Simulations Reveal Significant Differences in Mechanical Stimuli in Venous and Arterial Coronary Grafts

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Patient-Specific Simulations Reveal Significant Differences in Mechanical Stimuli in Venous and Arterial Coronary Grafts
Published in
Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12265-016-9706-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abhay B. Ramachandra, Andrew M. Kahn, Alison L. Marsden

Abstract

Mechanical stimuli are key to understanding disease progression and clinically observed differences in failure rates between arterial and venous grafts following coronary artery bypass graft surgery. We quantify biologically relevant mechanical stimuli, not available from standard imaging, in patient-specific simulations incorporating non-invasive clinical data. We couple CFD with closed-loop circulatory physiology models to quantify biologically relevant indices, including wall shear, oscillatory shear, and wall strain. We account for vessel-specific material properties in simulating vessel wall deformation. Wall shear was significantly lower (p = 0.014*) and atheroprone area significantly higher (p = 0.040*) in venous compared to arterial grafts. Wall strain in venous grafts was significantly lower (p = 0.003*) than in arterial grafts while no significant difference was observed in oscillatory shear index. Simulations demonstrate significant differences in mechanical stimuli acting on venous vs. arterial grafts, in line with clinically observed graft failure rates, offering a promising avenue for stratifying patients at risk for graft failure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 28%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Master 4 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 13 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 30 57%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 15 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,355,460
of 23,607,611 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
#168
of 597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,973
of 366,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,607,611 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 366,081 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.