| Title |
From CoreValve to Evolut PRO: Reviewing the Journey of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valves
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cardiology and Therapy, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40119-017-0100-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dhruv Mahtta, Islam Y. Elgendy, Anthony A. Bavry |
| Abstract |
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become standard therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are deemed at least intermediate risk for surgical valve replacement. Over the past decade, several technological advances have taken place to improve the quality and safety of these devices. The current commercially available valves are broadly grouped into balloon expandable and self-expandable valves. The latest iteration of the self-expandable valve is Medtronic's repositionable valve known as the Evolut PRO system. In this review, we highlight the evidence behind the use of TAVR, improvement in devices over previous generations, clinical evidence behind the CoreValve Evolut PRO system, and the future of TAVR. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 20 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 42% |
| Engineering | 13 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 25 | 30% |
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 30 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,482,347
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Cardiology and Therapy
#132
of 271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,618
of 328,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiology and Therapy
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 328,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.