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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Antecedent hypertension and myocardial injury in patients with reperfused ST-elevation myocardial infarction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-016-0299-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sebastian J. Reinstadler, Thomas Stiermaier, Charlotte Eitel, Mohammed Saad, Bernhard Metzler, Suzanne de Waha, Georg Fuernau, Steffen Desch, Holger Thiele, Ingo Eitel |
| Abstract |
Antecedent hypertension is associated with poor outcome in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Whether differences in myocardial salvage, infarct size and microvascular injury contribute to the adverse outcome is unknown. We investigated the association between antecedent hypertension and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) parameters of myocardial salvage and damage in a multicenter CMR substudy of the AIDA-STEMI trial (Abciximab Intracoronary versus intravenously Drug Application in ST-elevation myocardial infarction). We analyzed 792 consecutive STEMI patients reperfused within 12 h after symptom onset. Patients underwent CMR imaging for assessment of myocardial salvage, infarct size and microvascular obstruction within 10 days after infarction. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were recorded at 12-month follow-up. Antecedent hypertension was present in 540 patients (68 %) and was associated with a significantly increased baseline risk profile (advanced age, higher body mass index, higher incidence of diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, previous angioplasty and multivessel disease, p < 0.001 for all). MACE were more frequent in patients with hypertension as compared to patients without hypertension (45 [8 %] vs. 8 [3 %], p < 0.01). Antecedent hypertension remained an independent predictor of MACE after multivariate adjustment (hazard ratio 3.42 [confidence interval 1.45-8.08], p < 0.01). There was, however, no significant difference in the area at risk, infarct size, myocardial salvage index, extent of microvascular obstruction, and left ventricular ejection fraction between the groups (all p > 0.05). Despite a higher rate of MACE in contemporary reperfused STEMI patients with antecedent hypertension, there was no difference in reperfusion efficacy, infarct size and reperfusion injury as visualized by CMR. NCT00712101 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 20% |
| Other | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 7 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 55% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 22% |
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 16 November 2016.
All research outputs
#8,400,315
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#676
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,929
of 317,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#24
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 317,709 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.