↓ Skip to main content

Mechanical chest compressions in the coronary catheterization laboratory to facilitate coronary intervention and survival in patients requiring prolonged resuscitation efforts

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

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.
Title
Mechanical chest compressions in the coronary catheterization laboratory to facilitate coronary intervention and survival in patients requiring prolonged resuscitation efforts
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0198-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henrik Wagner, Bjarne Madsen Hardig, Malin Rundgren, David Zughaft, Jan Harnek, Matthias Götberg, Göran K. Olivecrona

Abstract

Resuscitation after cardiac arrest (CA) in the catheterization laboratory (cath-lab) using mechanical chest compressions (CC) during simultaneous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a strong recommendation in the 2015 European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines. This study aimed at re-evaluating survival to hospital discharge and assess long term outcome in this patient population. Patients presenting at the cath lab with spontaneous circulation, suffering CA and requiring prolonged mechanical CC during cath lab procedures between 2009 and 2013 were included. Circumstances leading to CA, resuscitation parameters and outcomes were evaluated within this cohort. For comparison, patients needing prolonged manual CC in the cath lab in the pre-mechanical CC era were evaluated. Six-month and one year survival with a mechanical CC treatment strategy from 2004 to 2013 was also evaluated. Thirty-two patients were included between 2009 and 2013 (24 ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 4 non-STEMI, 2 planned PCI, 1 angiogram and 1 intra-aortic counter pulsation balloon pump insertion). Twenty were in cardiogenic shock prior to inclusion. Twenty-five were successfully treated with PCI. Median mechanical CC duration for the total cohort (n = 32) was 34 min (range 5-90), for the 15 patients with circulation discharged from the cath-lab, 15 min (range 5-90), and for the eight discharged alive from hospital, 10 min (range 5-52). Twenty-five percent survived with good neurological outcome at hospital discharge. Ten patients treated with manual CC were included with one survivor. Eighty-seven percent of the patients included in the mechanical CC cohort had their coronary or cardiac intervention performed during mechanical CC with an 80 % success rate. This shows that the use of mechanical CC during an intervention does not seem to impair the interventional result substantially. The survival rate after one year was 87 %. Among patients suffering CA treated with mechanical CC in the cath-lab, 25 % had a good neurological outcome at hospital discharge compared to 10 % treated with manual CC. Long term survival in patients discharged from hospital is good.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 23%
Student > Bachelor 5 23%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Unknown 4 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,509,551
of 8,566,293 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#295
of 630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,918
of 335,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#19
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,566,293 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 58th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 335,852 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.