↓ Skip to main content

Intra aortic balloon pump: literature review of risk factors related to complications of the intraaortic balloon pump

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Intra aortic balloon pump: literature review of risk factors related to complications of the intraaortic balloon pump
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1749-8090-6-147
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haralabos Parissis, Alan Soo, Bassel Al-Alao

Abstract

The increasing use of the intra aortic balloon pump is attributed to the relatively easy percutaneous insertion and the low threshold of use over the past few years, especially in elderly patients with multi-vessel diseases and an affected ejection fraction.Unfortunately, the clinical assessment of the complications associated to the use of this supporting device, underestimates the frequency of such complications.This report has looked at the current literature and attempt to identify incremental risk factors related to the development of adverse effects during support with an intaaortic balloon pump.The paper concludes that in contrary to early reports, newer studies have shown that complications following intraaortic balloon pump treatment, is decreasing. Moreover the literature suggests that the thrombosis and infective complications are relevant to the duration of the pump treatment, while the ischemic problems of the limbs are mostly linked to the atherosclerotic status of the common femoral artery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Hungary 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 63 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Other 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Other 19 28%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 60%
Engineering 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 6 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 November 2011.
All research outputs
#3,523,763
of 8,163,518 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#55
of 318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,844
of 88,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,163,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 55th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 318 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 88,417 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 73% of its contemporaries.