↓ Skip to main content

A propensity matched analysis of outcomes and long term survival in stented versus stentless valves

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
A propensity matched analysis of outcomes and long term survival in stented versus stentless valves
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13019-017-0608-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Blake N. Shultz, Tomasz Timek, Alan T. Davis, John Heiser, Edward Murphy, Charles Willekes, Robert Hooker

Abstract

To compare the perioperative and long term survival after aortic valve replacement using stentless versus stented valves in a large cohort of patients grouped using propensity score matching. From 1991 to 2012, 4,563 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with stentless and stented valves at our institution. Propensity score matching identified 444 pairs using 13 independent variables: incidence of operation, smoking status, renal failure, hypertension, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic lung disease, ejection fraction, gender, age, valve status, and use of coronary artery bypass graft. Data were collected from our Society of Thoracic Surgeons database and the Social Security Death Index. Groups were compared using univariate and Kaplan-Meier analysis. The two groups demonstrated no significant differences for the 13 matching variables and the majority of 30-day outcomes (p > 0.05). The stented valve group showed a higher incidence of postoperative bleeding (3.6% vs 1.1%, p = 0.015), but a lower incidence of stroke (0.9% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.028). One, five, and 10-year survival was 95.0, 80.7, and 52.8% for stented and 93.2, 80.5, and 51.3% for stentless valves. Overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (p = 0.641). Stentless and stented valves had identical 30-day outcomes except for a higher postoperative incidence of bleeding and a lower incidence of stroke in the stented group. There was no significant difference in long term survival between valve types. Both valves may be used for aortic valve replacement with low morbidity and excellent long term survival.

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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Other 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 11 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Unspecified 1 3%
Unknown 11 37%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,462,982
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#401
of 1,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,815
of 316,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,244 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 316,427 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.