↓ Skip to main content

Catheter Interventions in Congenital Heart Disease Without Regular Catheterization Laboratory Equipment: The Chain of Hope Experience in Rwanda

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Cardiology, May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Catheter Interventions in Congenital Heart Disease Without Regular Catheterization Laboratory Equipment: The Chain of Hope Experience in Rwanda
Published in
Pediatric Cardiology, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00246-012-0378-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Senga, Emmanuel Rusingiza, Joseph Mucumbitsi, Agnès Binagwaho, Bert Suys, Christine Lys, Karlien Carbonez, Caroline Ovaert, Thierry Sluysmans

Abstract

This report describes the feasibility and safety of cardiac catheterization in a developing country without access to a regular cardiac catheterization laboratory. The equipment used for imaging consisted of a monoplane conventional C-arm X-ray system and a portable ultrasound machine using the usual guidewires and catheters for cardiovascular access. In this study, 30 patients, including 17 children younger than 2 years and 2 adults, underwent catheterization of the following cardiac anomalies: patent ductus arteriosus (20 patients) and pulmonary valve stenosis (9 patients, including 2 patients with critical stenosis and 3 patients with a secundum atrial septal defect). Except for two cases requiring surgery, the patients were treated successfully without complications. They all were discharged from hospital, usually the day after cardiac catheterization, and showed significant clinical improvement in the follow-up evaluation. Cardiac catheterization can be performed safely and very effectively in a country with limited resources. If patients are well selected, this mode of treatment is possible without the support of a sophisticated catheterization laboratory.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 26%
Researcher 8 17%
Other 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 11 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 October 2015.
All research outputs
#6,297,158
of 23,755,107 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Cardiology
#202
of 1,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,969
of 166,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Cardiology
#3
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,755,107 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,453 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 166,734 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 92% of its contemporaries.