↓ Skip to main content

Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Via Radial Access Anticoagulated With Bivalirudin Versus Heparin A Report…

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Via Radial Access Anticoagulated With Bivalirudin Versus Heparin A Report From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry
Published in
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, May 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.03.021
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ion S. Jovin, Rachit M. Shah, Dhavalkumar B. Patel, Sunil V. Rao, Dmitri V. Baklanov, Issam Moussa, Kevin F. Kennedy, Eric A. Secemsky, Robert W. Yeh, Michael C. Kontos, George W. Vetrovec

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare bivalirudin with heparin as anticoagulant agents in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with radial primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Recent studies in which PCI was performed predominantly via radial access did not show bivalirudin to be superior to heparin. Outcomes were compared in patients with STEMI included in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI database from 2009 to 2015 who underwent primary PCI via radial access and who were anticoagulated with bivalirudin or heparin. The sample included 67,368 patients, of whom 29,660 received bivalirudin and 37,708 received heparin. The 2 groups of patients did not differ significantly in their mean age or percentage of men. The unadjusted comparison showed no significant difference in the rate of the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (4.6% vs. 4.7%; p = 0.47) and a significantly higher rate of acute stent thrombosis (1.00% vs. 0.60%; p < 0.001) with bivalirudin compared with heparin. After adjusting for multiple variables, including a propensity score reflecting the probability of receiving bivalirudin, the odds ratio of the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke for bivalirudin versus heparin was 0.95 (95% confidence interval: 0.87 to 1.05; p = 0.152), and the odds ratio for acute stent thrombosis was 2.11 (95% confidence interval: 1.73 to 2.57) for bivalirudin versus heparin. Major bleeding rates were not significantly different. In patients undergoing primary PCI via transradial access anticoagulated with bivalirudin or heparin, there was no difference in the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Other 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 8 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Decision Sciences 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 09 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,212,047
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#498
of 4,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,901
of 327,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#11
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,032 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 done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 327,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.