↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Article Metrics

Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Heart Failure, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#39 of 732)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients
Published in
JACC: Heart Failure, March 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jchf.2017.02.016
Pubmed ID
Authors

Randall C. Starling, Jerry D. Estep, Douglas A. Horstmanshof, Carmelo A. Milano, Josef Stehlik, Keyur B. Shah, Brian A. Bruckner, Sangjin Lee, James W. Long, Craig H. Selzman, Vigneshwar Kasirajan, Donald C. Haas, Andrew J. Boyle, Joyce Chuang, David J. Farrar, Joseph G. Rogers, ROADMAP Study Investigators

Abstract

The authors sought to provide the pre-specified primary endpoint of the ROADMAP (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients) trial at 2 years. The ROADMAP trial was a prospective nonrandomized observational study of 200 patients (97 with a left ventricular assist device [LVAD], 103 on optimal medical management [OMM]) that showed that survival with improved functional status at 1 year was better with LVADs compared with OMM in a patient population of ambulatory New York Heart Association functional class IIIb/IV patients. The primary composite endpoint was survival on original therapy with improvement in 6-min walk distance ≥75 m. Patients receiving LVAD versus OMM had lower baseline health-related quality of life, reduced Seattle Heart Failure Model 1-year survival (78% vs. 84%; p = 0.012) predominantly INTERMACS (Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support) profile 4 (65% vs. 34%; p < 0.001) versus profiles 5 to 7. More LVAD patients met the primary endpoint at 2 years: 30% LVAD versus 12% OMM (odds ratio 3.2 [95% confidence interval 1.3 to 7.7]; p = 0.012). Survival as treated on original therapy at 2 years was greater for LVAD versus OMM (70 ± 5% vs. 41 ± 5%; p < 0.001), but there was no difference in intent-to-treat survival (70 ± 5% vs. 63 ± 5%; p = 0.307). In the OMM arm, 23 of 103 (22%) received delayed LVADs (18 within 12 months; 5 from 12 to 24 months). LVAD adverse events declined after year 1 for bleeding (primarily gastrointestinal) and arrhythmias. Survival on original therapy with improvement in 6-min walk distance was superior with LVAD compared with OMM at 2 years. Reduction in key adverse events beyond 1 year was observed in the LVAD group. The ROADMAP trial provides risk-benefit information to guide patient- and physician-shared decision making for elective LVAD therapy as a treatment for heart failure. (Risk Assessment and Comparative Effectiveness of Left Ventricular Assist Device and Medical Management in Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients [ROADMAP]; NCT01452802).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 63 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 21%
Unspecified 9 14%
Student > Postgraduate 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Other 20 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 47%
Unspecified 14 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Engineering 3 5%
Other 10 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 30 September 2018.
All research outputs
#179,112
of 12,372,610 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Heart Failure
#39
of 732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,813
of 267,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Heart Failure
#4
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,372,610 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 267,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.