↓ Skip to main content

Intra aortic balloon pump: literature review of risk factors related to complications of the intraaortic balloon pump

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Intra aortic balloon pump: literature review of risk factors related to complications of the intraaortic balloon pump
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/1749-8090-6-147
Pubmed ID
Authors

Haralabos Parissis, Alan Soo, Bassel Al-Alao

Abstract

The increasing use of the intra aortic balloon pump is attributed to the relatively easy percutaneous insertion and the low threshold of use over the past few years, especially in elderly patients with multi-vessel diseases and an affected ejection fraction.Unfortunately, the clinical assessment of the complications associated to the use of this supporting device, underestimates the frequency of such complications.This report has looked at the current literature and attempt to identify incremental risk factors related to the development of adverse effects during support with an intaaortic balloon pump.The paper concludes that in contrary to early reports, newer studies have shown that complications following intraaortic balloon pump treatment, is decreasing. Moreover the literature suggests that the thrombosis and infective complications are relevant to the duration of the pump treatment, while the ischemic problems of the limbs are mostly linked to the atherosclerotic status of the common femoral artery.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Hungary 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 78 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Other 11 13%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Other 23 28%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 54%
Engineering 12 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 10 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 November 2011.
All research outputs
#13,356,164
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#227
of 1,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,398
of 141,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,206 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 141,797 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.