| Title |
Management and Prevention of Saphenous Vein Graft Failure: A Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cardiology and Therapy, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40119-017-0094-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter McKavanagh, Bobby Yanagawa, George Zawadowski, Asim Cheema |
| Abstract |
Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains a vital treatment for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD), especially diabetics. The long-term benefit of the internal thoracic artery graft is well established and remains the gold standard for revascularization of severe CAD. It is not always possible to achieve complete revascularization through arterial grafts, necessitating the use of saphenous vein grafts (SVG). Unfortunately, SVGs do not have the same longevity, and their failure is associated with significant adverse cardiac outcomes and mortality. This paper reviews the pathogenesis of SVG failure, highlighting the difference between early, intermediate, and late failure. It also addresses the different surgical techniques that affect the incidence of SVG failure, as well as the medical and percutaneous prevention and treatment options in contemporary practice. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 97 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 23% |
| Unknown | 23 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 39% |
| Engineering | 9 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Unknown | 31 | 32% |
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 30 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,357,979
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from Cardiology and Therapy
#93
of 271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,995
of 317,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiology and Therapy
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 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 271 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 317,089 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.