↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Aortic Clamping Strategy on Postoperative Stroke in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Operations

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Surgery, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Effect of Aortic Clamping Strategy on Postoperative Stroke in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Operations
Published in
JAMA Surgery, January 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.3097
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Aortic clamping technique has been implicated in stroke risk at the time of on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures. We hypothesized that partial aortic clamping (PAC) use in performing proximal coronary anastomosis does not increase risk of stroke. To determine whether postoperative stroke incidence is influenced by single aortic clamping (SAC) or side-biting PAC use in performing proximal anastomosis during CABG procedures. In a retrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from 1819 patients who underwent conventional, isolated, nonemergent, first-time, arrested-heart, on-pump CABG at a single US major academic, tertiary/quaternary medical center from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2013. Postoperative stroke was defined according to Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) criteria as any confirmed neurological deficit of abrupt onset that did not resolve within 24 hours. Institutional STS data including STS predicted risk of postoperative stroke score were used to compare patients receiving proximal aortic anastomoses performed with either SAC (n = 1107) or combined PAC (n = 712) techniques. Use of SAC or PAC in performing proximal coronary anastomosis. Thirty-day periprocedural postoperative stroke rates. There were no significant differences in preoperative risk or STS predicted risk of mortality between groups. Patients in the SAC group had longer myocardial ischemic time compared with those in the PAC group (mean [SD], 73.2 [22.8] vs 66.5 [22.8] minutes, respectively; P < .001) but shorter overall perfusion time (mean [SD], 96.6 [30.1] vs 102.2 [30.1] minutes, respectively; P < .001). The 30-day observed mortality rates between the SAC and PAC groups were equally low (21 of 1107 patients [1.9%] vs 13 of 712 patients [1.8%], respectively; P > .99) and congruent with STS predicted risk of mortality. Preoperative STS predicted risk of postoperative stroke scores were nearly identical between the SAC and PAC groups (mean [SD], 1.5% [1.4%] vs 1.6% [1.4%]; P = .95), and the 30-day actual observed postoperative stroke rates between the SAC and PAC groups were similar (17 of 1107 patients [1.5%] vs 10 of 712 patients [1.4%], respectively; P > .99). In this contemporary study of on-pump CABG, we did not identify any significant differences in the incidence of postoperative stroke regardless of the clamping method used to perform proximal anastomosis.

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 5 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 22 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 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 9 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Computer Science 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 January 2016.
All research outputs
#2,655,845
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Surgery
#2,152
of 5,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,471
of 399,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Surgery
#41
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 399,679 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 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 51% of its contemporaries.