↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Randomized comparative study of left versus right radial approach in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Randomized comparative study of left versus right radial approach in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/cia.s81568
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fu Qiang, Hongyu Hu, De-zhao Wang, Wei Chen, Zhixu Tan, Qun Li, Bu-xing Chen

Abstract

Growing evidence suggests that the left radial approach (LRA) is related to decreased coronary procedure duration and fewer cerebrovascular complications as compared to the right radial approach (RRA) in elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the feasibility of LRA in primary PCI has yet to be studied further. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of LRA compared with RRA for primary PCI in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. A total of 200 consecutive patients with STEMI who received primary PCI were randomized to LRA (number [n]=100) or RRA (n=100). The study endpoint was needle-to-balloon time, defined as the time from local anesthesia infiltration to the first balloon inflation. Radiation dose by measuring cumulative air kerma (CAK) and CAK dose area product, as well as fluoroscopy time and contrast volume were also investigated. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics between the two groups. The coronary procedural success rate was similar between both radial approaches (98% for left versus 94% for right; P=0.28). Compared with RRA, LRA had significantly shorter needle-to-balloon time (16.0±4.8 minutes versus 18.0±6.5 minutes, respectively; P=0.02). Additionally, fluoroscopy time (7.4±3.4 minutes versus 8.8±3.5 minutes, respectively; P=0.01) and CAK dose area product (51.9±30.4 Gy cm(2) versus 65.3±49.1 Gy cm(2), respectively; P=0.04) were significantly lower with LRA than with RRA. Primary PCI can be performed via LRA with earlier blood flow restoration in the infarct-related artery and lower radiation exposure when compared with RRA; therefore, the LRA may become a feasible and attractive alternative to perform primary PCI for STEMI patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 25%
Lecturer 2 17%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Master 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 8%
Unknown 5 42%

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 20 February 2022.
All research outputs
#6,360,016
of 21,240,621 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#645
of 1,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,127
of 246,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#18
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,240,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. 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 246,516 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 67% of its contemporaries.