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 |
Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence and Peri-Procedural Complication Rates in nMARQ vs. Conventional Ablation Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2018.00544 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ka H. C. Li, Mei Dong, Mengqi Gong, George Bazoukis, Ishan Lakhani, Yan Y. Ting, Sunny H. Wong, Guangping Li, William K. K. Wu, Vassilios S. Vassiliou, Martin C. S. Wong, Konstantinos Letsas, Yimei Du, Victoria Laxton, Bryan P. Yan, Yat S. Chan, Yunlong Xia, Tong Liu, Gary Tse, International Health Informatics Study Network |
| Abstract |
Background and Objectives: Atrial fibrillation is a common abnormal cardiac rhythm caused by disorganized electrical impulses. AF which is refractory to antiarrhythmic management is often treated with catheter ablation. Recently a novel ablation system (nMARQ) was introduced for PV isolation. However, there has not been a systematic review of its efficacy or safety compared to traditional ablation techniques. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis on the nMARQ ablation system. Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched up until 1st of September 2017 for articles on nMARQ. A total of 136 studies were found, and after screening, 12 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Results: Our meta-analysis shows that the use of nMARQ was associated with higher odds of AF non-recurrence (n = 1123, odds ratio = 6.79, 95% confidence interval 4.01-11.50; P < 0.05; I2 took a value of 83%). Moreover, the recurrence rate of AF using nMARQ was not significantly different from that of traditional ablation procedures (n = 158 vs. 196; OR = 0.97, 95% confidence interval:0.59-1.61). No significant difference in complication rates was observed between these groups (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.37-1.99; P > 0.05). There were four reported mortalities in the nMARQ group compared to none in the conventional ablation group (relative risk: 1.58; 95% CI: 0.09-29.24; P > 0.05). Conclusions: AF recurrence rates are comparable between nMARQ and conventional ablation techniques. Although general complication rates are similar for both groups, the higher mortality with nMARQ suggests that conventional techniques should be used for resistant AF until improved safety profiles of nMARQ can be demonstrated. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 41% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 52% |
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 16 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,948,821
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#7,247
of 13,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,753
of 330,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#264
of 476 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 330,047 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 476 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.