↓ Skip to main content

Severe Pulmonary Vein Stenosis Resulting From Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation, October 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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
120 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Severe Pulmonary Vein Stenosis Resulting From Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation
Published in
Circulation, October 2016
DOI 10.1161/circulationaha.116.021949
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erin A Fender, R Jay Widmer, David O Hodge, George M Cooper, Kristi H Monahan, Laurie A Peterson, David R Holmes, Douglas L Packer

Abstract

-The frequency of pulmonary vein stenosis (PVS) after ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) has decreased but it remains a highly morbid condition. While treatment strategies including PV dilation and stenting have been described, the long-term impacts of these interventions are unknown. We evaluated the presentation of severe PVS, and examined the risk for restenosis after intervention utilizing either balloon angioplasty (BA) alone or BA with stenting. -This was a prospective, observational study of 124 patients with severe PVS evaluated between 2000 and 2014. -All 124 patients were identified as having severe PVS by CT in 219 veins. One hundred and two patients (82%) were symptomatic at diagnosis. The most common symptoms were dyspnea (67%), cough (45%), fatigue (45%), and decreased exercise tolerance (45%). Twenty-seven percent of patients experienced hemoptysis. Ninety-two veins were treated with BA, 86 were treated with stenting, and 41 veins were not intervened on. A 94% acute procedural success rate was observed and did not differ by initial management. Major procedural complications occurred in 4 of the 113 patients (3.5%) who underwent invasive assessment and minor complications occurred in 15 patients (13.3%). Overall, 42% of veins developed restenosis including 27% of veins (n=23) treated with stenting, and 57% of veins (n=52) treated with BA. The 3-year overall rate of restenosis was 37%, with 49% of BA treated veins and 25% of stented veins developing restenosis (HR 2.77, 95% CI 1.72-4.45, p<0.001). After adjustment for age, CHA2DS2-VASc score, hypertension, and the time period of the study there was still a significant difference in the risk of restenosis for BA versus stenting (HR=2.46, 95% CI 1.47-4.12, p<0.001). -The diagnosis of PVS is challenging due to non-specific symptoms, and the need for dedicated PV imaging. There is no difference in acute success by type of initial intervention; however, stenting significantly reduces the risk of subsequent PV restenosis compared to BA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 23%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 21 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,736,978
of 25,482,409 outputs
Outputs from Circulation
#5,527
of 21,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,529
of 320,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation
#113
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,482,409 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 21,139 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 320,900 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.