↓ Skip to main content

Cerebral Embolic Risk During Transcatheter Mitral Valve Interventions An Unaddressed and Unmet Clinical Need?

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, March 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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
73 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
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.
Title
Cerebral Embolic Risk During Transcatheter Mitral Valve Interventions An Unaddressed and Unmet Clinical Need?
Published in
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.12.018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matteo Pagnesi, Damiano Regazzoli, Marco B. Ancona, Antonio Mangieri, Giuseppe Lanzillo, Francesco Giannini, Nicola Buzzatti, Bernard D. Prendergast, Susheel Kodali, Alexandra J. Lansky, Antonio Colombo, Azeem Latib

Abstract

As new transcatheter mitral valve (MV) interventions continuously evolve, potential procedure-related adverse events demand careful investigation. The risk of cerebral embolic damage is ubiquitous in any left-sided structural heart intervention (and potentially linked to long-term neurocognitive sequelae); therefore, efforts to evaluate these aspects in the field of catheter-based MV procedures are justified. Given the peculiarities of MV anatomy, MV disease, and MV procedures, the lessons learned from other transcatheter heart interventions (i.e., transcatheter aortic valve replacement) cannot be directly translated to MV applications. Through a systematic assessment of available evidence, the authors present and discuss procedure- and patient-related factors potentially associated with cerebral embolic risk during catheter-based MV interventions. Given the paucity of available data in this field, future large, dedicated studies are needed to understand whether cerebral embolic injury represents a real clinical issue during MV procedures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 73 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 33%
Other 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Unknown 11 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 08 September 2019.
All research outputs
#811,854
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#242
of 4,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,377
of 344,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#4
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 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 94% 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 344,926 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 91 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 96% of its contemporaries.