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 |
Access Sites for TAVI: Patient Selection Criteria, Technical Aspects, and Outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcvm.2018.00088 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luigi Biasco, Enrico Ferrari, Giovanni Pedrazzini, Francesco Faletra, Tiziano Moccetti, Francesco Petracca, Marco Moccetti |
| Abstract |
During the last ten years, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a reliable and valid alternative treatment for elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis requiring valve replacement and being at high or intermediate surgical risk. While common femoral arteries are the access site of choice in the vast majority of TAVI patients, in up to 15-20% of TAVI candidates this route might be precluded due to the presence of diffuse atherosclerotic disease, tortuosity or small vessel diameter. Therefore, in order to achieve an antegrade or retrograde implant, several alterative access routes have been described, namely trans-axillary, trans-aortic, trans-apical, trans-carotid, trans-septal, and trans-caval. The aim of this paper is to give a concise overview on vascular access sites for TAVI, with a particular focus on patient's selection criteria, imaging, technical aspects, and clinical outcome. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 98 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 16% |
| Unknown | 30 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 50 | 51% |
| Engineering | 6 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 34 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 July 2021.
All research outputs
#6,827,116
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#1,053
of 6,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,244
of 296,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
#15
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,830 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 296,064 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.