↓ Skip to main content

1-Year Outcomes With the Fully Repositionable and Retrievable Lotus Transcatheter Aortic Replacement Valve in 120 High-Risk Surgical Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Results of the REPRISE II…

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
115 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
1-Year Outcomes With the Fully Repositionable and Retrievable Lotus Transcatheter Aortic Replacement Valve in 120 High-Risk Surgical Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Results of the REPRISE II Study
Published in
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, February 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.10.024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian T. Meredith, Darren L. Walters, Nicolas Dumonteil, Stephen G. Worthley, Didier Tchétché, Ganesh Manoharan, Daniel J. Blackman, Gilles Rioufol, David Hildick-Smith, Robert J. Whitbourn, Thierry Lefèvre, Rüdiger Lange, Ralf Müller, Simon Redwood, Ted E. Feldman, Dominic J. Allocco, Keith D. Dawkins

Abstract

This analysis presents the first report of 1-year outcomes of the 120 patients enrolled in the REPRISE II (Repositionable Percutaneous Placement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus Valve System-Evaluation of Safety and Performance) study. The fully repositionable and retrievable Lotus Valve (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Massachusetts) was designed to facilitate accurate positioning, early valve function, and hemodynamic stability during deployment and to minimize paravalvular regurgitation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. The study enrolled 120 symptomatic patients 70 years of age or older at 14 centers in Australia and Europe. Patients had severe calcific aortic stenosis and were deemed to be at high or extreme risk of surgery based on assessment by the heart team. The mean age was 84.4 ± 5.3 years, 57% (68 of 120) of patients were women, and the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 7.1 ± 4.6. The mean baseline aortic valve area was 0.7 ± 0.2 cm(2), and the mean transvalvular pressure gradient was 46.4 ± 15.0 mm Hg. All patients were successfully implanted with a Lotus Valve, and 1-year clinical follow-up was available for 99.2% (119 of 120 of patients). The mean 1-year transvalvular aortic pressure gradient was 12.6 ± 5.7 mm Hg, and the mean valve area was 1.7 ± 0.5 cm(2). A total of 88.6% patients had no or trivial paravalvular aortic regurgitation at 1 year by independent core lab adjudication, and 97.1% of patients were New York Heart Association functional class I or II. At 1 year, the all-cause mortality rate was 10.9% (13 of 119 patients), disabling stroke rate was 3.4% (4 of 119 patients), disabling bleeding rate was 5.9% (7 of 119 patients), with no repeat procedures for valve-related dysfunction. A total of 31.9% (38 of 119 patients) underwent new permanent pacemaker implantation at 1 year. At 1 year of follow-up, the Lotus Valve demonstrated excellent valve hemodynamics, no moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation, and significant and sustained improvement in New York Heart Association functional class status, with good clinical outcomes. (Repositionable Percutaneous Placement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus Valve System-Evaluation of Safety and Performance [REPRISE II]; NCT01627691).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 112 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 19%
Other 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 20 18%
Unknown 31 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 51%
Engineering 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 36 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 18 November 2020.
All research outputs
#3,222,523
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#1,464
of 4,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,673
of 406,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#21
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 406,425 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.