↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: stent-covering of the side branch with and without PCI of the side branch: a retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: stent-covering of the side branch with and without PCI of the side branch: a retrospective analysis of all consecutive patients
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, April 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2261-13-27
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hubertus von Korn, Victor Stefan, Reyn van Ewijk, Kamalesh Chakraborty, Burkhard Sanwald, R Andel, Jan Hemker, Ulrich Hink, Marc Ohlow, Bernward Lauer, Thomas Muenzel

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions is a complex problem. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study included all consecutive patients with PCI of coronary bifurcations with stent covering of the side branch (SB) between January 2008 - August 2011.Two methods were compared: group A represented patients without treatment of SB, group B were patients with treatment of SB. RESULTS: Our study group (n = 98) was group A (n = 64, 65.3%) and group B (n = 34, 34.7%). Mean follow-up was 14.1 (group A) vs 12.3 (group B, p = ns) months.Mean age (years) was 70.3 (group A) vs. 67.0 (group B, p = ns), NSTEMI/STEMI was present in 54.7% (group A) vs. 41,2% (group B, p = ns).Duration of x-raying (min, group A vs group B) and the amount of contrast medium (ml) were significantly lower in group A: 18.1 min vs 20.1 min and 225.8 ml vs 307.4 ml (p < 0.05).Final TIMI flow III inside the MB was reached in 98.4% (group A) vs. 97.1% (group B, p = ns), inside the SB in 84.4% vs. 94.1% (p = ns).Target lesion revascularization and target vessel revascularization was seen in 15.9% (group A) vs 32.4% (group B, p = 0.07), cardiac death in 7.9% (group A) vs 14.7% (group B, p = 0.3).All MACE revealed were: 23.8% (group A) vs. 47.1% (group B, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In patients with coronary bifurcations a simpler strategy has a significantly lower MACE.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01538186.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ukraine 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 17%
Professor 2 11%
Lecturer 1 6%
Researcher 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 39%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unknown 8 44%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 April 2013.
All research outputs
#4,607,813
of 6,230,503 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#351
of 511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,995
of 98,544 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#12
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,230,503 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 511 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 98,544 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.