| Title |
Management of Arrhythmias and Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in Patients With Left Ventricular Assist Devices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacep.2018.04.014 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gordon Ho, Oscar Ö Braun, Eric D Adler, Gregory K Feld, Victor G Pretorius, Ulrika Birgersdotter-Green |
| Abstract |
For patients with end-stage heart failure, the use of mechanical circulatory support has increased in the last decade due to improved outcomes with durable left ventricular assist devices. The management of these complex patients requires coordinated care by a multidisciplinary team including cardiac electrophysiologists because atrial and ventricular arrhythmias are prevalent in this population. There have been an increasing number of studies that attempt to address issues regarding arrhythmia management in patients with left ventricular assist devices. The purpose of this review is to provide electrophysiologists with an evidence-based approach to manage a broad spectrum of arrhythmia issues in these patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 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 | 22 | 26% |
| Spain | 9 | 11% |
| Colombia | 4 | 5% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 3 | 4% |
| Argentina | 3 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Chile | 2 | 2% |
| Australia | 2 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 27 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 56 | 66% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 15 | 18% |
| Scientists | 8 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 21% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 54% |
| Engineering | 4 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 31 July 2018.
All research outputs
#896,716
of 25,637,545 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#134
of 1,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,134
of 343,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#2
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,637,545 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 343,460 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.