| Title |
Leadless Pacing: Current State and Future Direction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cardiology and Therapy, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40119-017-0097-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthias Merkel, Philipp Grotherr, Andrea Radzewitz, Claus Schmitt |
| Abstract |
Leadless pacing is now an established alternative to conventional pacing with subcutaneous pocket and transvenous lead for patients with class I or II single-chamber pacing indication. Available 12-month follow-up data shows a 48% fewer major complication rate in patients with Micra™ compared to a historical control group in a nonrandomized study [1]. There is one system with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and two with the Communauté Européenne (CE) mark. The OPS code for the implantation is 8-83d.3 and the procedure has recently been rated as a "new Examination and Treatment Method (NUB)" in the German DRG system, meaning adequate reimbursement is negotiable with health insurance providers. The systems offer similar generator longevity and programming possibilities as conventional pacemaker systems, including rate response, remote monitoring, and MRI safety. The biggest downsides to date are limitations to single-chamber stimulation, lack of long-time data, and concerns of handling of the system at the end of its life span. However, implant procedure complication rates and procedure times do not exceed conventional pacemaker operations, and proper training and patient selection is provided. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 53% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 14 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,355,715
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Cardiology and Therapy
#93
of 270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,377
of 312,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiology and Therapy
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 312,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.