↓ Skip to main content

The Importance of Patency in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia Undergoing Endovascular Revascularization for Infrapopliteal Arterial Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
24 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
The Importance of Patency in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia Undergoing Endovascular Revascularization for Infrapopliteal Arterial Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fcvm.2014.00017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederic Baumann, Christoph Ozdoba, Ernst Gröchenig, Nicolas Diehm

Abstract

Critical limb ischemia (CLI) represents the most severe form of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and frequently occurs in medically frail patients. CLI patients frequently exhibit multi-segmental PAD commonly including the tibial arterial segment. Endovascular therapy has been established as first-line revascularization strategy for most CLI patients. Restenosis was reported to occur in up to more than two-thirds of CLI patients undergoing angioplasty of complex tibial arterial obstructions. Nevertheless, favorable clinical outcomes were observed for infrapopliteal angioplasty when compared with bypass surgery, despite higher patency rates for the latter. Based on these observations, infrapopliteal patency was considered to be only of secondary importance upon clinical outcomes in CLI patients. In contrast to these earlier observations, however, recent findings from two randomized clinical trials indicate that infrapopliteal patency does impact on clinical outcomes in CLI patients. The purpose of the present manuscript is to provide a critical reappraisal of the present literature on the clinical importance of tibial arterial patency in CLI patients undergoing endovascular revascularization and to discuss utility and limitations of currently available anti-restenosis technologies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 29%
Student > Master 6 25%
Other 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 67%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Chemistry 1 4%
Engineering 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,793,491
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#2,109
of 6,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,759
of 352,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,665 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. 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 352,357 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.