↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Sixteen-Year Experience of David and Bentall Procedures in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection

Overview of attention for article published in The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
Title
Sixteen-Year Experience of David and Bentall Procedures in Acute Type A Aortic Dissection
Published in
The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, December 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.09.029
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bo Yang, Himanshu J. Patel, Claire Sorek, Whitney E. Hornsby, Xiaoting Wu, Sarah Ward, Marc Thomas, Anisa Driscoll, Victoria A. Waidley, Elizabeth L. Norton, Donald S. Likosky, G. Michael Deeb

Abstract

To examine short-term and midterm outcomes after the David and Bentall procedures in patients with an acute type A aortic dissection. Between 2001 and 2017, patients (n = 135) with acute type A aortic dissection underwent an aortic root replacement with either the David (n = 40) or Bentall (n = 95) procedure. Perioperative outcome, reoperation rate, aortic valve function, and long-term survival were evaluated. The median age of the entire cohort was 56 years. Rates of malperfusion (21%), shock (16%), history of renal failure (4%), and extent of surgery were similar between David and Bentall groups. However, the David group was significantly younger (45 versus 61 years) with less hypertension (45% versus 66%), coronary artery disease (0% versus 17%), valvulopathy (5% versus 19%), and prior cardiac surgery (5% versus 21%). Overall operative mortality was 9.6% (David 3% and Bentall 13%). Composite outcome comprising myocardial infarction, stroke, new-onset renal failure, and operative mortality was 18% in the entire cohort (David 5% and Bentall 23%). In the David group, the freedom of moderate aortic insufficiency was 95% at 10 years. The rate of reoperation for pathology of the proximal aorta or aortic valve was 0% and 2% for the David and Bentall groups, respectively. Ten-year Kaplan-Meier survival was 66% (95% confidence interval: 51% to 77%) for the entire cohort, with 98% (95% confidence interval: 84% to 99%) survival in the David group and 57% (95% confidence interval: 42% to 70%) survival in the Bentall group. Both the David and Bentall procedures are appropriate surgical approaches for aortic root replacement in select patients with an acute type A aortic dissection.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 60%
Student > Bachelor 1 20%
Student > Master 1 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,477,750
of 11,753,826 outputs
Outputs from The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
#641
of 4,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,163
of 308,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
#45
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,753,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,637 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 308,090 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 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 69% of its contemporaries.