↓ Skip to main content

Anticoagulation Control in Patients With Ventricular Assist Devices

Overview of attention for article published in ASAIO Journal: A Peer-Reviewed Journal of the American Society for Artificial Internal Organs, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Anticoagulation Control in Patients With Ventricular Assist Devices
Published in
ASAIO Journal: A Peer-Reviewed Journal of the American Society for Artificial Internal Organs, November 2017
DOI 10.1097/mat.0000000000000592
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amelia K. Boehme, Salpy V. Pamboukian, James F. George, T. Mark Beasley, James K. Kirklin, Jose Tallaj, Chrisly Dillon, Emily B. Levitan, Russell Griffin, Gerald McGwin, William B. Hillegass, Nita A. Limdi

Abstract

Anticoagulation control has been associated with risk of thromboembolism and hemorrhage. Herein, we explore the relationship between anticoagulation control achieved in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients and evaluate the association with risk of thromboembolism and hemorrhage. Patients (19 years old or older) with a continuous flow LVAD placed from 2006 to 2012. Proportion of time spent in target range (PTTR) for international normalized ratio (INR) was estimated with target range of 2.0-3.0. Proportion of time spent in target range was categorized into PTTR > 60%, PTTR ≥ 50 < 60%, and PTTR < 50%. The relationship between PTTR and thromboembolism and hemorrhage was assessed. One hundred fifteen participants contributed 624.5 months of follow-up time. Only 20% of patients achieved anticoagulation control (PTTR > 60% for INR range of 2-3). After adjusting for chronic kidney disease, history of diabetes, history of atrial fibrillation, and age at implant, compared with patients with PTTR < 50%, the relative risk of thromboembolism in patients with PTTR ≥ 60% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14-0.96; p = 0.042) was significantly lower, but not for patients with a PTTR of ≥ 50 < 60% (HR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.02-1.82; p = 0.16). The relative risk for hemorrhage was also significantly lower among patients with a PTTR ≥ 60% (HR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.21-0.98; p = 0.045), but not among those with PTTR of ≥ 50 < 60% (HR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.14-1.56; p = 0.22). This current study demonstrates that LVAD patients remain in the INR target range an average of 42.9% of the time. To our knowledge, this is the first report with regard to anticoagulation control as assessed by PTTR and its association with thromboembolism, hemorrhage, or death among patients with ventricular assist devices (VADs).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 30%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 45%
Engineering 4 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 6 18%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 November 2018.
All research outputs
#14,283,318
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from ASAIO Journal: A Peer-Reviewed Journal of the American Society for Artificial Internal Organs
#1,519
of 2,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,919
of 340,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ASAIO Journal: A Peer-Reviewed Journal of the American Society for Artificial Internal Organs
#16
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 2,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 340,752 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 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.