↓ Skip to main content

Practical based approach to left main bifurcation stenting

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Practical based approach to left main bifurcation stenting
Published in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12872-016-0227-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jung-Min Ahn, Pil Hyung Lee, Seung-Jung Park

Abstract

Despite the recent developments that have been made in the field of percutaneous left main (LM) intervention, the treatment of distal LM bifurcation remains challenging. The provisional one-stent approach for LM bifurcation has shown more favorable outcomes than the two-stent technique, making the former the preferred strategy in most types of LM bifurcation stenosis. However, elective two-stent techniques, none of which has been proven superior to the others, are still used in patients with severely diseased large side branches to avoid acute hemodynamic compromise. Selecting the proper bifurcation treatment strategy using meticulous intravascular ultrasound evaluation for side branch ostium is crucial for reducing the risk of side branch occlusion and for improving patient outcomes. In addition, unnecessary complex intervention can be avoided by measuring fractional flow reserve in angiographically isolated side branches. Most importantly, good long-term clinical outcomes are more related to the successful procedure itself than to the type of stenting technique, emphasizing the greater importance of optimizing the chosen technique than the choice of method.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 31%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 54%
Chemical Engineering 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 29%
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 11 April 2020.
All research outputs
#13,859,387
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#587
of 1,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,816
of 300,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#12
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,726 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 300,366 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 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 71% of its contemporaries.