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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Lead Extraction of Cardiac Rhythm Devices: A Report of a Single-Center Experience
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcvm.2017.00018 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ana Isabel Azevedo, João Primo, Helena Gonçalves, Marco Oliveira, Luís Adão, Elisabeth Santos, José Ribeiro, Marlene Fonseca, Adelaide V. Dias, Luís Vouga, Vasco Gama Ribeiro |
| Abstract |
The rate of implanted cardiac electronic devices is increasing as is the need to manage long-term complications. Lead removal is becoming an effective approach to treat such complications. We present our experience in lead removal using different approaches, analyzing the predictors of the use of mechanical extractors/surgical removal. Retrospective analysis of lead extractions in a series of 76 consecutive patients (mean age 70.4 ± 13.8 years, 73.7% men) between January 2009 and November 2015. One hundred thirty-five leads from permanent pacemakers (single chamber 19.7%; dual-chamber 61.8%), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (5.3%), and cardiac resynchronization devices (CRT-P 2.6%; CRT-D 7.9%) were removed, 72.5 ± 73.2 months after implantation. A total of 45.9% were ventricular leads, 40.0% atrial leads, 8.9% defibrillator leads, and 5.2% leads in the coronary sinus; 64.4% had passive fixation. The most common indications for removal were pocket infection (77.8%), infective endocarditis (9.6%), and lead dislodgement (3.7%). A total of 76.3% of the leads were explanted, 20.0% were extracted, and 3.7% were surgically removed. Extraction of the entire lead was achieved in 96.3% of the procedures. After logistic regression (age adjusted), time since implantation was the sole predictor of the need of mechanical extractors/surgical removal. All patients were discharged without major complications. There were no deaths at 30 days. Our experience in lead removal was effective and safe. Performing these procedures by experienced electrophysiologists with an adequate cardiothoracic surgery team on standby to cope with any complications is required. Referral of high-risk patients to a high-volume center is recommended to optimize clinical success and minimize procedural complications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Librarian | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 55% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
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
#18,541,268
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#3,215
of 6,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,821
of 310,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#22
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,866 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 310,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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.