↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (With Drug-Eluting Stents) Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Women With Severe Narrowing of the Left Main Coronary Artery (from the Women–Drug-E…

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Cardiology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (With Drug-Eluting Stents) Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Women With Severe Narrowing of the Left Main Coronary Artery (from the Women–Drug-Eluting stent for LefT main coronary Artery disease Registry)
Published in
American Journal of Cardiology, January 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.01.409
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gill Louise Buchanan, Alaide Chieffo, Emanuele Meliga, Roxana Mehran, Seung-Jung Park, Yoshinobu Onuma, Piera Capranzano, Marco Valgimigli, Inga Narbute, Raj R. Makkar, Igor F. Palacios, Young-Hak Kim, Piotr P. Buszman, Tarun Chakravarty, Imad Sheiban, Christoph Naber, Ronan Margey, Arvind Agnihotri, Sebastiano Marra, Davide Capodanno, Victoria Allgar, Martin B. Leon, Jeffrey W. Moses, Jean Fajadet, Thierry Lefevre, Marie-Claude Morice, Andrejs Erglis, Corrado Tamburino, Ottavio Alfieri, Patrick W. Serruys, Antonio Colombo

Abstract

Women typically present with coronary artery disease later than men with more unfavorable clinical and anatomic characteristics. It is unknown whether differences exist in women undergoing treatment for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. Our aim was to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes in women treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). All consecutive women from the Drug-Eluting stent for LefT main coronary Artery disease registry with ULMCA disease were analyzed. A propensity matching was performed to adjust for baseline differences. In total, 817 women were included: 489 (59.8%) underwent treatment with PCI with drug-eluting stents versus 328 (40.2%) with CABG. Propensity score matching identified 175 matched pairs, and at long-term follow-up there were no differences in all-cause (odds ratio [OR] 0.722, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.357 to 1.461, p=0.365) or cardiovascular (OR 1.100, 95% CI 0.455 to 2.660, p=0.832) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI; OR 0.362, 95% CI 0.094 to 1.388, p=0.138), or cerebrovascular accident (CVA; OR 1.200, 95% CI 0.359 to 4.007, p=0.767) resulting in no difference in the primary study objective of death, MI, or CVA (OR 0.711, 95% CI 0.387 to 1.308, p=0.273). However, there was an advantage of CABG in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (OR 0.429, 95% CI 0.254 to 0.723, p=0.001), driven exclusively by target vessel revascularization (OR 0.185, 95% CI 0.079 to 0.432, p<0.001). In women with significant ULMCA disease, no difference was observed after PCI or CABG in death, MI, and CVA at long-term follow-up.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 19%
Lecturer 6 10%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 16 26%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 37%
Engineering 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Computer Science 3 5%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 16 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 May 2014.
All research outputs
#22,759,452
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Cardiology
#9,471
of 10,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#282,514
of 322,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Cardiology
#85
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,180 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 322,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.