↓ Skip to main content

Detecting and monitoring arrhythmia recurrence following catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Detecting and monitoring arrhythmia recurrence following catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00090
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olujimi A. Ajijola, Noel G. Boyle, Kalyanam Shivkumar

Abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia prompting clinical presentation, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The incidence and prevalence of this arrhythmia is expected to grow significantly in the coming decades. Of the available pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment options, the fastest growing and most intensely studied is catheter-based ablation therapy for AF. Given the varying success rates for AF ablation, the increasingly complex factors that need to be taken into account when deciding to proceed with ablation, as well as varying definitions of procedural success, accurate detection of arrhythmia recurrence and its burden is of significance. Detecting and monitoring AF recurrence following catheter ablation is therefore an important consideration. Multiple studies have demonstrated the close relationship between the intensity of rhythm monitoring with wearable ambulatory cardiac monitors, or implantable cardiac rhythm monitors and the detection of arrhythmia recurrence. Other studies have employed algorithms dependent on intensive monitoring and arrhythmia detection in the decision tree on whether to proceed with repeat ablation or medical therapy. In this review, we discuss these considerations, types of monitoring devices, and implications for monitoring AF recurrence following catheter ablation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Master 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Other 7 26%
Unknown 5 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 44%
Engineering 5 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Computer Science 2 7%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 March 2015.
All research outputs
#20,265,771
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,349
of 13,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,155
of 263,558 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#68
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 263,558 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.