↓ Skip to main content

BMJ

Embolus Retriever with Interlinked Cages versus other stent retrievers in acute ischemic stroke: an observational comparative study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Embolus Retriever with Interlinked Cages versus other stent retrievers in acute ischemic stroke: an observational comparative study
Published in
Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, May 2018
DOI 10.1136/neurintsurg-2018-013838
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philipp Gruber, Salome Zeller, Carlos Garcia-Esperon, Jatta Berberat, Javier Anon, Michael Diepers, Krassen Nedeltchev, Fabian Flottmann, Jens Fiehler, Luca Remonda, Timo Kahles

Abstract

Given the promising performance of the new Embolus Retriever with Interlinked Cages (ERIC) in smaller case series, we sought to assess the efficacy and safety of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with ERIC compared with other stent retrievers (SRs) in acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion (LVO). We reviewed the databases of two comprehensive stroke centers in in Germany and Switzerland for MT due to LVO in the anterior circulation with either ERIC or another SR as a first device. Co-primary outcome was defined as successful recanalization (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2b/3) after the first device and favorable outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0-2) at 90 days' follow-up. Multiple logistic regression analysis was applied to adjust for potential confounders. 183 consecutive patients with stroke were treated with either ERIC (49%) or a SR (51%) as the first device and successful recanalization was seen in 82% and 57%, respectively (P<0.001). Adding SR to futile ERIC recanalization or vice versa increased final recanalization rates (ERIC: 87%, SR: 79%). The use of ERIC as a first device resulted in favorable clinical outcome in 50% compared with 35% when a SR was used (P=0.038), an effect driven by age, stroke severity, presence of carotid-T-occlusion, and general anesthesia and not by the device deployed. The use of ERIC as a first device appeared to be associated with higher rates of successful recanalization and resulted in better functional outcome. However, favorable outcome was not attributable to ERIC. Most importantly, both device types complemented one another and improved final recanalization rates when used successively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 12 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 29%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Engineering 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 15 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 27 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,367,963
of 23,057,470 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
#1,209
of 2,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,129
of 328,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
#39
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,057,470 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,369 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 328,266 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.