| Title |
Robotic-Assisted Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11936-018-0608-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nathan Lo, Jorge Antonio Gutierrez, Rajesh V. Swaminathan |
| Abstract |
The goal of this review is to describe the benefits and limitations of robotic-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the most important and recent clinical data, and the future applications as robotic technology continues to develop. Robotic-assisted PCI can reduce occupational hazards of ionizing radiation exposure and orthopedic injury to the interventional cardiologist while offering increased precision and fine control that may confer benefit to the patient. Recent studies have suggested the efficacy and safety of robotic-assisted PCI, yet widespread use of the technology has not been fully adopted due to limitations of the current technology and high costs. Robotic-assisted PCI has potential to benefit both the operator and the patient. Despite some limitations of robotic-assisted PCI, it can safely and effectively be used in many patients with coronary artery disease requiring PCI. The value proposition for robotic-assisted PCI will depend on the evolution of robotic systems and its applicability to more complex coronary lesions, peripheral arterial interventions, and telemedicine. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 21% |
| Engineering | 3 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 19 | 58% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,314,737
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine
#260
of 416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,707
of 330,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine
#13
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 416 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 330,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.