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 |
Factors Influencing Decision Making for Carotid Endarterectomy versus Stenting in the Very Elderly
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2017.00220 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sung Hyuk Heo, Cheryl D. Bushnell |
| Abstract |
As the population ages worldwide, the number of elderly patients with carotid stenosis is also increasing. There have been many large clinical trials comparing carotid endarterectomy (CAE) versus stenting, but the inclusion criteria (i.e., symptomatic or asymptomatic), stenting methods (i.e., protection device), and primary end point (i.e., the definition of myocardial infarction and follow-up period) were different between trials. Therefore, the interpretation of those results is difficult and requires attention. When it comes to age, the patients older than 80 years were excluded or stratified to a high risk group in previous landmark trials. However, a recent guideline recommended that endarterectomy may be associated with lower stroke risk compared with carotid artery stenting in patients older than 70 years with symptomatic carotid disease. The annual risk of stroke in individuals with asymptomatic carotid stenosis is about 1-3% but the risk is about 4-12% with symptomatic stenosis without carotid intervention. Although the outcome of CAE is better than that of carotid stenting in patients older than 70 years, the perioperative risk is higher in older patients. Therefore, it is important to classify high risk patients and consider underlying disability and life expectancy of very elderly patients before deciding whether to undergo a carotid intervention. In addition, we should also consider that the stroke rate with intensive medical treatment is unknown and is currently being investigated in randomized controlled trials. Intensive medical treatment includes high intensity statins, diabetes and blood pressure control, and aggressive antiplatelet treatment. The aim of this review is to report the factors that may be responsible for the variability in the treatment of carotid stenosis, particularly in the elderly population. This will allow the readers to integrate the current available evidence to individualize the treatment of carotid stenosis in this challenging population. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 23% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 54% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 23% |
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 26 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,425,762
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,875
of 11,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,760
of 313,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#131
of 179 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 313,447 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 179 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.