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 |
Instructive percutaneous coronary intervention to avoid the risk of side branch occlusion at a lesion with a lotus root appearance: a case report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12872-016-0335-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tetsuya Nomura, Taku Kato, Hiroshi Kubota, Daisuke Miyawaki, Ryota Urata, Takeshi Sugimoto, Yusuke Higuchi, Natsuya Keira, Tetsuya Tatsumi |
| Abstract |
A lotus root appearance is a rare entity, and there is little opportunity to perform coronary intervention for this kind of lesion. Because of its peculiar anatomical characteristics, one of the problems regarding percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for these lesions is related to the involvement of branch vessels. We encountered a case of PCI for a stenotic lesion with a lotus root appearance in the mid-portion of the right coronary artery (RCA). To avoid the risk of right ventricular (RV) branch occlusion due to stent deployment in the main RCA, we re-crossed the third guidewire into the main RCA via the nearest point to the RV branch ostium through the communicating vascular lumen. Thereafter, we deployed a drug-eluting stent in the main RCA crossing over the RV branch, and the ostium of the RV branch remained intact, as we expected. This case is the first report in the world describing the details of how to maintain the patency of the side branch bifurcating from a lesion with a lotus root appearance under optical coherence tomography guidance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 2 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 29% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Researcher | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Engineering | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 8 | 57% |
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 06 July 2018.
All research outputs
#13,266,732
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#540
of 1,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,747
of 367,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 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 1,648 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 367,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.