↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative assessment of paravalvular regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Quantitative assessment of paravalvular regurgitation following transcatheter aortic valve replacement
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12968-015-0134-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gareth Crouch, Phillip J Tully, Jayme Bennetts, Ajay Sinhal, Craig Bradbrook, Amy L Penhall, Carmine G De Pasquale, Robert A Baker, Joseph B Selvanayagam

Abstract

Paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR) following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is well acknowledged. Despite improvements, echocardiographic measurement of PAR largely remains qualitative. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) directly quantifies AR with accuracy and reproducibility. We compared CMR and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) analysis of pre-operative and post-operative aortic regurgitation in patients undergoing both TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Eighty-seven patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI (56 patients) or AVR were recruited. CMR (1.5 T) and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) were carried out pre-operatively and a median of 6 days post-operatively. The CMR protocol included regurgitant aortic flows using through-plane phase-contrast velocity. None/trivial, mild, moderate and severe AR by CMR was defined as ≤8%, 9-20%, 21-39%, >40% regurgitant fractions respectively. Pre- and post-operative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was similar. Post-procedure aortic regurgitant fraction using CMR was higher in the TAVI group (TAVI 16 ± 13% vs. AVR 4 ± 4%, p < 0.01). Comparing CMR to TTE, 27 of 56 (48%) TAVI patients had PAR which was at least one grade more severe on CMR than TTE (Z = -4.56, p <0.001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the difference in PAR grade between TTE and CMR in the TAVI group (Z = -4.49, p < 0.001). When compared to CMR based quantitative analysis, TTE underestimated the degree of paravalvular aortic regurgitation. This underestimation may in part explain the findings of increased mortality associated with mild or greater AR by TTE in the PARTNER trial. Paravalvular aortic regurgitation post TAVI assessed as mild by TTE may in fact be more severe.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Other 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 59%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 19 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 2015.
All research outputs
#14,606,041
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#864
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,272
of 279,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 279,968 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.