↓ Skip to main content

Disruption of bioresorbable vascular scaffold struts due to loss of radial integrity: insights from optical coherence tomography

Overview of attention for article published in The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Disruption of bioresorbable vascular scaffold struts due to loss of radial integrity: insights from optical coherence tomography
Published in
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10554-016-1013-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Rita Ramalho, João Silva Marques, Guilherme Mariano Pêgo

Abstract

Strut disruption of bioresorbable vascular scaffold is a known potential concern, although uncommon when adequate lesion preparation is achieved and nominal size of the scaffold is respected. It is usually difficult to detect with angiography and/or intravascular ultrasound. Three-dimensional reconstructions of optical coherence tomography facilitates understanding of complex luminal anatomy and configuration of stent struts, providing evaluation of stent integrity immediately after deployment and therefore optimization of the complex revascularization procedure. The present article reports a case where this image modality enabled successful use of a drug-eluting stent inside a bioresorbable vascular scaffold to restore the luminal integrity, jeopardized by struts disruption. This case highlights the need to better characterize coronary atherosclerotic disease complexity before considering bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation. Optical coherence tomography imaging could be a useful tool for accurate selection of the most suitable lesions for bioresorbable stents and to guide the revascularization process, so that in the event of stent fracture it may be detected and managed in a timely fashion.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 22%
Other 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Other 2 22%
Unknown 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 78%
Unknown 2 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 April 2017.
All research outputs
#22,760,732
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#1,460
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#279,101
of 318,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#32
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 318,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.