↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of aortic stiffness by cardiovascular magnetic resonance following the treatment of severe aortic stenosis by TAVI and surgical AVR

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Assessment of aortic stiffness by cardiovascular magnetic resonance following the treatment of severe aortic stenosis by TAVI and surgical AVR
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12968-016-0256-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tarique Al Musa, Akhlaque Uddin, Timothy A. Fairbairn, Laura E. Dobson, Steven P. Sourbron, Christopher D. Steadman, Manish Motwani, Ananth Kidambi, David P. Ripley, Peter P. Swoboda, Adam K. McDiarmid, Bara Erhayiem, James J. Oliver, Daniel J. Blackman, Sven Plein, Gerald P. McCann, John P. Greenwood

Abstract

Aortic stiffness is increasingly used as an independent predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. We sought to compare the impact of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) upon aortic vascular function using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) measurements of aortic distensibility and pulse wave velocity (PWV). A 1.5 T CMR scan was performed pre-operatively and at 6 m post-intervention in 72 patients (32 TAVI, 40 SAVR; age 76 ± 8 years) with high-risk symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Distensibility of the ascending and descending thoracic aorta and aortic pulse wave velocity were determined at both time points. TAVI and SAVR patients were comparable for gender, blood pressure and left ventricular ejection fraction. The TAVI group were older (81 ± 6.3 vs. 72.8 ± 7.0 years, p < 0.05) with a higher EuroSCORE II (5.7 ± 5.6 vs. 1.5 ± 1.0 %, p < 0.05). At 6 m, SAVR was associated with a significant decrease in distensibility of the ascending aorta (1.95 ± 1.15 vs. 1.57 ± 0.68 × 10(-3)mmHg(-1), p = 0.044) and of the descending thoracic aorta (3.05 ± 1.12 vs. 2.66 ± 1.00 × 10(-3)mmHg(-1), p = 0.018), with a significant increase in PWV (6.38 ± 4.47 vs. 11.01 ± 5.75 ms(-1), p = 0.001). Following TAVI, there was no change in distensibility of the ascending aorta (1.96 ± 1.51 vs. 1.72 ± 0.78 × 10(-3)mmHg(-1), p = 0.380), descending thoracic aorta (2.69 ± 1.79 vs. 2.21 ± 0.79 × 10(-3)mmHg(-1), p = 0.181) nor in PWV (8.69 ± 6.76 vs. 10.23 ± 7.88 ms(-1), p = 0.301) at 6 m. Treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis by SAVR but not TAVI was associated with an increase in aortic stiffness at 6 months. Future work should focus on the prognostic implication of these findings to determine whether improved patient selection and outcomes can be achieved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Greece 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 60 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 19 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 43%
Engineering 5 8%
Mathematics 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 23 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 August 2016.
All research outputs
#7,054,132
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#498
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,917
of 361,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#16
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 361,315 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.