| Title |
Idiopathic Lead Migration Concept and Variants of an Uncommon Cause of Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Dysfunction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacep.2017.02.015 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
José L. Morales, Santiago Nava, Manlio F. Márquez, Jorge González, Jorge Gómez-Flores, Luis Colín, Marco A. Martínez-Ríos, Pedro Iturralde |
| Abstract |
This cumulative case study was performed to properly address the possible mechanisms, forms, and consequences of "twiddler's," "reel," and "ratchet" syndromes. Twiddler's, reel, and ratchet syndromes are rare entities responsible for lead displacement of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). From 2007 to 2012, 1,472 CIED were implanted at our center. Eighty-nine cases were reviewed for failure of pacing circuit integrity. Only 9 met the inclusion criteria for idiopathic lead migration (ILM) and were grouped as ILM (twiddler) or ILM (reel). For a pooled analysis of cases, a review of the literature from 1990 to 2012 was performed, and the authors identified 78 cases from 64 publications. The study population consisted of 87 cases (45 women; median age, 66 years; 46 with ILM [twiddler] and 41 with ILM [reel]). Migration affected only 1 lead in 65% of 46 devices with more than 1 lead. None of the previously reported risk factors-manual manipulation of the device, elderly age, obesity, oversized pocket, and psychiatric history-correlated with the risk of ILM. Neither manual manipulation of the device nor the other traditional risk factors reported in the literature for ILM syndrome correlated with the risk of ILM. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 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 | 13 | 24% |
| Mexico | 3 | 6% |
| Spain | 3 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 6% |
| Turkey | 2 | 4% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| Canada | 2 | 4% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 20 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 33 | 61% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 22% |
| Scientists | 7 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
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 06 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,225,350
of 25,670,640 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#233
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,004
of 331,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#7
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,670,640 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 1,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 331,077 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 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.