Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) frequently undergo various surgical procedures and in the past perioperative management involved only placing magnet over the device. New programming features, development of implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD), cardiac resynchronization therapy, and increasing complexity of the operating room equipment have led to new sources of electromagnetic interference (EMI). A comprehensive understanding of the CIED is necessary to provide a timely and optimal care to the patients.
Technological advancements and direct implantation of the transvenous implantable cardiac defibrillators into the heart have led to less clear lines between the pacemakers and the ICD. Subcutaneous ICD as well as the leadless transcatheter deployed intracardiac pacemaker development has complicated the issue further.
Rapidly developing technologies and increasing number of patients with these devices coming for noncardiac surgeries necessitate continuous education of the anesthesia team regarding perioperative management of such devices.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#22,050,459
of 34,372,222 outputs
Outputs from Current opinion in anaesthesiology
#916
of 1,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#289,013
of 491,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current opinion in anaesthesiology
#10
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,372,222 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,796 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 491,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
