↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of different bridging anticoagulation therapies used after mechanical heart valve replacement in Chinese patients - a prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, February 2020
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Comparison of different bridging anticoagulation therapies used after mechanical heart valve replacement in Chinese patients - a prospective cohort study
Published in
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery, February 2020
DOI 10.1186/s13019-020-1084-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bo-Xia Li, Shi-Dong Liu, Liang Qi, Shusen Sun, Wei Sun, Yuan-Min Li, Bing Song, Xin-An Wu

Abstract

To assess different bridging anticoagulation therapies early after mechanical heart valve replacement (MHVR) in Chinese patients. We performed a prospective, single-center, observational cohort study of 305 patients who underwent elective MHVR with different bridging anticoagulation regimens. Patients enrolled in the study were divided into three bridging therapy groups: the unfractionated heparin (UFH) group (n = 109), the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) group (n = 97), and the UFH with sequential LMWH (UFH-LMWH) group (n = 99). All patients were followed for 4 weeks. Two patients experienced thromboembolic stroke events in the UFH group. The LMWH group was associated with an increase in the incidence of bleeding events compared with the UFH group (10.3% VS 2.8%; P = 0.03). With a comparison of LMWH and UFH group in secondary endpoints, the statistical test for significance indicated a trend of reduced ICU length of stay (P = 0.08), postoperative length of stay (P = 0.08) and time of achieving target INR (P = 0.06). The creatinine level (odds ratio = 1.03; 95% confidence interval = 1.01 to 1.05; P = 0.02) and hypertension (odds ratio = 3.72; 95% confidence interval = 1.35 to 10.28; P = 0.01) were risk factors for bleeding events. For Chinese patients, the LMWH bridging anticoagulation presents the increased the incidence of bleeding events, but enables patients to benefit from achieving an early anticoagulation effect. Close follow-up and personalized management are required in patients with thromboembolic and bleeding risk factors. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR1800019841. Registered 2 December 2018 retrospectively.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Unknown 11 55%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Engineering 1 5%
Unknown 13 65%
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 17 September 2020.
All research outputs
#18,714,452
of 23,195,584 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#651
of 1,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,350
of 361,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
#15
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,195,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,258 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 361,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.