↓ Skip to main content

Alternative access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in older adults: A collaborative study from France and United States

Overview of attention for article published in Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (Formerly Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis), July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
39 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.
Article details
Title
Alternative access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in older adults: A collaborative study from France and United States
Published in
Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (Formerly Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis), July 2018
DOI 10.1002/ccd.27690
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

We examined the outcomes of older adults undergoing nontrans-femoral (non-TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures including trans-apical (TA), trans-aortic (TAo), trans-subclavian (TSub), and trans-carotid (TCa) techniques. This is an observational study of all consecutive older patients who underwent non-TF TAVR for symptomatic severe AS with Edwards Sapien (ES), Medtronic CoreValve, ES3 or Lotus Valve at three centers in France and the United States from 04/2008 to 02/2017. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were defined according to VARC-2 criteria. Of 857 patients who received TAVR, 172 (20%) had an alternative access procedure. Of these, 45 (26%) were TA, 67 (39%) TAo, 17 (10%) TSub, and 43 (25%) TCa procedures. The preference for non-TF access site was different between the two countries (US: TA 39%, TAo 52%, TSub 9%; TCa 0% vs. France: TA 9%, TAo 23%, TSub 11%, and TCa 57%, P-value < .001). Most patients who underwent TAo TAVR were older women (median age: TA 82, TAo 84, TSub 81, TCa 81, P-value = 0.043; female gender: TA 32 (27%), TAo 30 (55%), TSub 10 (41%), TCa 27 (37%), P-value = .021). The predicted Society of Thoracic Surgery risk of mortality was similar among groups (TA 7%, TAo 7%, TSub 6%, TCa 7%, P-value= .738). No differences were observed in the frequency of para-valvular leak, intra-procedural bleeding, vascular complications, conversion to open-heart surgery, or development of acute kidney injury. The highest in-hospital mortality was observed in the TAo group (TA 2%, TAo 15%, TSub 0%, TCa 2%, P-value = .014). However, hospital length of stay, one-month, and one-year mortality were similar among non-TF techniques. Although regional differences exist in the choice of alternative access techniques, centers with high technical expertise can provide a safe alternative to traditional TF TAVR. TAo TAVR was associated with higher in-hospital mortality than other non-TF approaches, and this may have reflected patient rather than procedural factors. All alternative access techniques had similar mortality rates and clinical outcomes at one-year follow-up. Trans-carotid access is safe and feasible compared to other non-TF access techniques.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Other 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 18 46%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 17 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#7,538,863
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (Formerly Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis)
#1,267
of 4,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,211
of 372,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions (Formerly Catheterization and Cardiovascular Diagnosis)
#13
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,709 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 372,593 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 56% of its contemporaries.