| Title |
Fluoroscopic Anatomy of Right-Sided Heart Structures for Transcatheter Interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.03.050 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michele Pighi, Pascal Thériault-Lauzier, Hind Alosaimi, Marco Spaziano, Giuseppe Martucci, Tian-Yuan Xiong, Jean Buithieu, Luiz Fernando Ybarra, Jonathan Afilalo, Jonathon Leipsic, Ozge Ozden Tok, Negareh Mousavi, Andrea Mangiameli, Thomas Pilgrim, Fabien Praz, Stephan Windecker, Nicolo Piazza |
| Abstract |
Performing transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions requires a thorough knowledge of right-heart imaging. Integration of chamber views across the spectrum of imaging modalities (i.e., multislice computed tomography, fluoroscopy, and echocardiography) can facilitate transcatheter interventions on the right heart. Optimal fluoroscopic viewing angles for guiding interventional procedures can be obtained using pre-procedural multislice computed tomography scans. The present paper describes fluoroscopic viewing angles necessary to appreciate right-heart chamber anatomy and their relationship to echocardiography using multislice computed tomography. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 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 | 28% |
| Mexico | 6 | 8% |
| Italy | 3 | 4% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Comoros | 2 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Egypt | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 17 | 21% |
| Unknown | 21 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 59 | 74% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 16% |
| Scientists | 6 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 53% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 20 November 2019.
All research outputs
#868,675
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#276
of 4,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,454
of 341,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#10
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 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 4,032 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 341,886 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 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.