| Title |
Evolving Indications for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Cardiology Reports, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11886-017-0921-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna Franzone, Thomas Pilgrim, Stefan Stortecky, Stephan Windecker |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this review was to summarize recent progress in the field of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), discuss expansion of indications, and identify areas of future clinical applications. Favorable clinical outcomes as well as continued refinement of transcatheter heart valve technology have prompted the continuous expansion of indications for TAVR. The results of randomized clinical trials comparing the safety and efficacy of TAVR relative to conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in lower- than high-risk patients have recently been published, and trials among lower-risk categories are ongoing. Furthermore, evidence of the feasibility and safety of TAVR in patients with other pathological conditions is accumulating. Large pivotal randomized studies support the extension of TAVR to intermediate-risk patients. Moreover, TAVR is emerging as a valuable treatment option for other categories including patients with bicuspid aortic valve, those with pure native aortic regurgitation deemed inoperable, and those with degenerated surgical bioprosthetic valves. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 48% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,292,486
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#560
of 1,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,759
of 323,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,127 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 323,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.