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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Impact of Center Left Ventricular Assist Device Volume on Outcomes After Implantation An INTERMACS Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC: Heart Failure, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jchf.2017.05.011 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jennifer A. Cowger, John M. Stulak, Palak Shah, Todd F. Dardas, Francis D. Pagani, Shannon M. Dunlay, Simon Maltais, Keith D. Aaronson, Ramesh Singh, Nahush A. Mokadam, James K. Kirklin, Christopher T. Salerno |
| Abstract |
This study examined patient outcomes after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation across a range of center surgical volumes. In order for a center to qualify for reimbursement, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) requires it to implant ≥10 LVADs or total artificial hearts over a 3-year period. The impact of center LVAD surgical volumes on patient outcomes has not been thoroughly scrutinized. Center volumes were provided for 7,416 patients undergoing LVAD implantation who were enrolled in INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support). Center LVAD volume was categorized as either very low (≤10 implants/year, n = 617), low (11 to 30 implants/year, n = 2,561), medium (31 to 50 implants/year, n = 2,458), or high (>50 implants/year, n = 1,750). The main outcome of interest was patient survival based on center volume derived from Kaplan-Meier and multivariate Cox regression. Overall survival was associated with center volume (p = 0.003), as follows: 71 ± 1.8% (very low volume), 81 ± 0.8% (low volume), 83 ± 0.8% (medium volume), and 79 ± 1.0% (high volume) at 1 year. Compared with medium volume centers, the 90-day mortality was higher in very low volume (odds ratio [OR]: 1.35; p = 0.04) and high volume (OR: 1.28; p = 0.018) VAD centers. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality were 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11 to 1.56), 1.07 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.21), and 1.17 (95% CI: 1.03 to 1.30) for very low, low, and high volume centers, respectively. Center volume did not predict mortality (p = 0.25; n = 3,688) in INTERMACS profile 1 patients (patients who had sustained cardiogenic shock) and profile 2 patients (patients with progressive hemodynamic decline despite inotropes). Center volume correlates with post-VAD survival, with worse survival noted at very-low-volume centers. These findings suggest that current U.S. VAD center standards warrant reconsideration. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 States | 5 | 45% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 9% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Brazil | 1 | 9% |
| Argentina | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 18% |
| Scientists | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 11% |
| Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 29% |
| Unknown | 14 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 17 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 05 June 2019.
All research outputs
#966,741
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Heart Failure
#303
of 1,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,753
of 323,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Heart Failure
#8
of 39 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 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,583 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 323,170 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.