You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Atrial Versus Ventricular Cannulation for a Rotary Ventricular Assist Device
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Artificial Organs, September 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1525-1594.2010.01093.x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel Timms, Shaun Gregory, Po‐Lin Hsu, Bruce Thomson, Mark Pearcy, Keith McNeil, John Fraser, Ulrich Steinseifer |
| Abstract |
The ventricular assist device inflow cannulation site is the primary interface between the device and the patient. Connecting these cannulae to either atria or ventricles induces major changes in flow dynamics; however, there are little data available on precise quantification of these changes. The objective of this investigation was to quantify the difference in ventricular/vascular hemodynamics during a range of left heart failure conditions with either atrial (AC) or ventricular (VC) inflow cannulation in a mock circulation loop with a rotary left VAD. Ventricular ejection fraction (EF), stroke work, and pump flow rates were found to be consistently lower with AC compared with VC over all simulated heart failure conditions. Adequate ventricular ejection remained with AC under low levels of mechanical support; however, the reduced EF in cases of severe heart failure may increase the risk of thromboembolic events. AC is therefore more suitable for class III, bridge to recovery patients, while VC is appropriate for class IV, bridge to transplant/destination patients. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 24 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 32% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 4 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 11 | 44% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 20% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 February 2011.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Artificial Organs
#1,859
of 1,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,947
of 107,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Artificial Organs
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,991 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 107,346 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.