↓ Skip to main content

Partial cavopulmonary assist from the inferior vena cava to the pulmonary artery improves hemodynamics in failing Fontan circulation: a theoretical analysis

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Physiological Sciences, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Partial cavopulmonary assist from the inferior vena cava to the pulmonary artery improves hemodynamics in failing Fontan circulation: a theoretical analysis
Published in
The Journal of Physiological Sciences, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12576-015-0422-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shuji Shimizu, Toru Kawada, Dai Une, Masafumi Fukumitsu, Michael James Turner, Atsunori Kamiya, Toshiaki Shishido, Masaru Sugimachi

Abstract

Cavopulmonary assist (CPA) for failing Fontan patients remains a challenging issue in the clinical setting. To evaluate the effectiveness of a partial CPA from the inferior vena cava (IVC) to the pulmonary artery (PA), we performed a theoretical analysis using a computational model of the Fontan circulation. Cardiac chambers and vascular systems were described as the time-varying elastance model and the modified three-element Windkessel model, respectively. A rotational pump described as a non-linear function was inserted between the IVC and the PA. When pulmonary vascular resistance index varied from 2.1 to 5.9 Wood units m(2), the partial CPA maintained cardiac index as efficiently as total CPA and markedly reduced the IVC pressure compared with total CPA. However, the partial CPA increased the superior vena cava pressure substantially. The modification from total to partial CPA is potentially an effective alternative in failing Fontan patients suffering from high IVC pressure.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 50%
Engineering 4 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
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 20 April 2016.
All research outputs
#21,476,880
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Physiological Sciences
#267
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,657
of 289,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Physiological Sciences
#19
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 289,598 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.