↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

The Learning Curve and Annual Procedure Volume Standards for Optimum Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Findings From an International Registry

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
43 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
The Learning Curve and Annual Procedure Volume Standards for Optimum Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Findings From an International Registry
Published in
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, September 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jcin.2018.06.044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony W.A. Wassef, Josep Rodes-Cabau, Yaqing Liu, John G. Webb, Marco Barbanti, Antonio J. Muñoz-García, Corrado Tamburino, Antonio E. Dager, Vicenç Serra, Ignacio J. Amat-Santos, Juan H. Alonso Briales, Alberto San Roman, Marina Urena, Dominique Himbert, Lius Nombela-Franco, Alexandre Abizaid, Fabio S. de Brito, Henrique B. Ribeiro, Marc Ruel, Valter C. Lima, Fabian Nietlispach, Asim N. Cheema

Abstract

The authors aimed to determine the procedural learning curve and minimum annual institutional volumes associated with optimum clinical outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a complex procedure requiring significant training and experience for successful outcome. Despite increasing use of TAVR across institutions, limited information is available for its learning curve characteristics and minimum annual volumes required to optimize clinical outcomes. The study collected data for patients at 16 centers participating in the international TAVR registry since initiation of the respective TAVR program. All cases were chronologically ordered into initial (1 to 75), early (76 to 150), intermediate (151 to 225), high (226 to 300), and very high (>300) experience operators for TAVR learning curve characterization. In addition, participating institutions were stratified by annual TAVR case volume into low-volume (<50), moderate-volume (50 to 100), and high-volume (>100) groups for comparative analysis. Procedural and 30-day clinical outcomes were collected and multivariate regression analysis performed for 30-day mortality and the early safety endpoint. A total of 3,403 patients comprised the study population. On multivariate analysis, all-cause mortality was significantly higher for initial (odds ratio [OR]: 3.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.93 to 7.60), early (OR: 2.41; 95% CI: 1.51 to 5.03), and intermediate (OR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.19 to 5.40) experience groups compared with the very high experience operators. In addition, the early safety endpoint was significantly worse for all experience groups compared with the very high experience operators. Low annual volume (<50) TAVR institutions had significantly higher all-cause 30-day mortality (OR: 2.70; 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.07) and worse early safety endpoint (OR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.17 to 2.17) compared with the moderate- and high-volume groups. There was no difference in patient outcomes between intermediate and high annual volume groups. TAVR procedures display important learning curve characteristics with both greater procedural safety and a lower mortality when performed by experienced operators. In addition, TAVR performed at low annual volume (<50 procedures) institutions is associated with decreased procedural safety and higher patient mortality. These findings have important implications for operator training and patient care at centers performing TAVR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 16%
Other 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Professor 4 5%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 26 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Mathematics 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 27 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. 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 05 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,006,046
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#365
of 4,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,366
of 345,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#8
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 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 4,042 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 90% 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 345,970 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 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 90% of its contemporaries.