| Title |
Technology update: intracardiac echocardiography – a review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s49567 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicola Vitulano, Vincenzo Pazzano, Gemma Pelargonio, Maria Lucia Narducci |
| Abstract |
The development of new imaging tools helps in better investigation of cardiac structures and function by showing detailed images during interventional procedures. Intracardiac echocardiography plays a pivotal role as an intraoperative real-time imaging tool during invasive cardiac procedures. Initially, this echocardiographic technique was particularly useful when transthoracic image quality was insufficient and to avoid general anesthesia for transesophageal imaging. Nowadays, intracardiac echocardiography is routinely used in several cardiac invasive laboratories to support several types of procedures, such as extraction and implantation of cardiac devices, electrophysiological mapping, ablation, and endomyocardial biopsies. This review gives an overview of the basic principles of intracardiac echocardiography and examines its applications in the different settings of invasive cardiology. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 18% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 38% |
| Engineering | 10 | 25% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 28 December 2022.
All research outputs
#8,039,503
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#102
of 303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,040
of 279,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 279,338 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.