| Title |
Transradial left ventricular endomyocardial biopsy: assessment of safety and efficacy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Research in Cardiology, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00392-015-0844-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tim G. Schäufele, Raphael Spittler, Artemisia Karagianni, Peter Ong, Karin Klingel, Reinhard Kandolf, Heiko Mahrholdt, Udo Sechtem |
| Abstract |
We aimed at assessing the safety and efficacy of a systematic transradial approach for left ventricular endomyocardial biopsy using a new hydrophilic sheathless guiding catheter. Forty-two consecutive patients were included. The transradial success rate was 98 % (41 of 42). In one case, cross over to femoral access due to irreversible spasm of the right radial artery was necessary. No radial spasm was observed in the other 41 patients. Depending on the indication, several other procedures, such as coronary angiography or ventricular angiography, were additionally performed through the same transradial access site. Median fluoroscopy time was 7.9 min. The mean dose area product was 1867 cGy × cm(2). All biopsy samples were graded as good or excellent quality. No patient had any complications. Immediate post-procedural ambulation could be achieved in all patients. Radial artery patency was confirmed by duplex sonography 24 h after removal of the guide. The present study demonstrates safety and efficacy of a systematic transradial access for left ventricular EMB using a highly hydrophilic sheathless guiding catheter. This is of clinical importance since this new technique may overcome critical limitations of the common approach. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 1 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 16% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 37% |
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 01 February 2023.
All research outputs
#14,027,905
of 23,257,423 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#476
of 844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,493
of 264,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Research in Cardiology
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,257,423 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 264,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 53% of its contemporaries.