↓ Skip to main content

Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement The German Aortic Valve Registry

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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
53 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
107 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Conscious Sedation Versus General Anesthesia in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement The German Aortic Valve Registry
Published in
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.12.019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oliver Husser, Buntaro Fujita, Christian Hengstenberg, Christian Frerker, Andreas Beckmann, Helge Möllmann, Thomas Walther, Raffi Bekeredjian, Michael Böhm, Costanza Pellegrini, Sabine Bleiziffer, Rüdiger Lange, Friedrich Mohr, Christian W. Hamm, Timm Bauer, Stephan Ensminger, GARY Executive Board

Abstract

The aims of this study were to report on the use of local anesthesia or conscious sedation (LACS) and general anesthesia in transcatheter aortic valve replacement and to analyze the impact on outcome. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement can be performed in LACS or general anesthesia. Potential benefits of LACS, such as faster procedures and shorter hospital stays, need to be balanced with safety. A total of 16,543 patients from the German Aortic Valve Registry from 2011 to 2014 were analyzed, and propensity-matched analyses were performed to correct for potential selection bias. LACS was used in 49% of patients (8,121 of 16,543). In hospital, LACS was associated with lower rates of low-output syndrome, respiratory failure, delirium, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and death. There was no difference in paravalvular leakage (II+) between LACS and general anesthesia in the entire population (5% vs. 4.8%; p = 0.76) or in the matched population (3.9% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.13). The risk for prolonged intensive care unit stay (≥3 days) was significantly reduced with LACS (odds ratio: 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73 to 0.92; p = 0.001). Thirty-day mortality was lower with LACS in the entire population (3.5% vs. 4.9%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.86; p < 0.001) and in the matched population (2.8% vs. 4.6%; HR: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.8; p < 0.001). However, no differences in 1-year mortality between both groups in the entire population (16.5% vs. 16.9%; HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.02; p = 0.140) and in the propensity-matched population (14.1% vs. 15.5%; HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.03; p = 0.130) were observed. Use of LACS in transcatheter aortic valve replacement is safe, with fewer post-procedural complications and lower early mortality, suggesting its broad application.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Other 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 28 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 31 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,219,579
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#506
of 4,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,039
of 344,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#12
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th 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 well, scoring higher than 87% 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 344,853 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 92% 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 well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.