| Title |
Clinical utility of platinum chromium bare-metal stents in coronary heart disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s69415 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claudia Jorge, Christophe Dubois |
| Abstract |
Coronary stents represent a key development for the treatment of obstructive coronary artery disease since the introduction of percutaneous coronary intervention. While drug-eluting stents gained wide acceptance in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention practice, further developments in bare-metal stents remain crucial for patients who are not candidates for drug-eluting stents, or to improve metallic platforms for drug elution. Initially, stent platforms used biologically inert stainless steel, restricting stent performance due to limitations in flexibility and strut thickness. Later, cobalt chromium stent alloys outperformed steel as the material of choice for stents, allowing latest generation stents to be designed with significantly thinner struts, while maintaining corrosion resistance and radial strength. Most recently, the introduction of the platinum chromium alloy refined stent architecture with thin struts, high radial strength, conformability, and improved radiopacity. This review will provide an overview of the novel platinum chromium bare-metal stent platforms available for coronary intervention. Mechanical properties, clinical utility, and device limitations will be summarized and put into perspective. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 49 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 21 | 43% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 35% |
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 24 September 2019.
All research outputs
#7,387,249
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#92
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,719
of 276,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 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 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 276,607 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 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.