↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of heart failure in adults with thalassemia major: response in patients randomised to deferoxamine with or without deferiprone

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, May 2013
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 (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Treatment of heart failure in adults with thalassemia major: response in patients randomised to deferoxamine with or without deferiprone
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1532-429x-15-38
Pubmed ID
Authors

John B Porter, John Wood, Nancy Olivieri, Elliott P Vichinsky, Ali Taher, Ellis Neufeld, Patricia Giardina, Alexis Thompson, Blaine Moore, Patricia Evans, Hae-Young Kim, Eric A Macklin, Felicia Trachtenberg

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Established heart failure in thalassaemia major has a poor prognosis and optimal management remains unclear. METHODS: A 1 year prospective study comparing deferoxamine (DFO) monotherapy or when combined with deferiprone (DFP) for patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <56% was conducted by the Thalassemia Clinical Research Network (TCRN). All patients received DFO at 50--60 mg/kg 12--24 hr/day sc or iv 7 times weekly, combined with either DFP 75 at mg/kg/day (combination arm) or placebo (DFO monotherapy arm). The primary endpoint was the change in LVEF by CMR. RESULTS: Improvement in LVEF was significant in both study arms at 6 and 12 months (p = 0.04), normalizing ventricular function in 9/16 evaluable patients. With combination therapy, the LVEF increased from 49.9% to 55.2% (+5.3% p = 0.04; n = 10) at 6 months and to 58.3% at 12 months (+8.4% p = 0.04; n = 7). With DFO monotherapy, the LVEF increased from 52.8% to 55.7% (+2.9% p = 0.04; n = 6) at 6 months and to 56.9% at 12 months (+4.1% p = 0.04; n = 4). The LVEF trend did not reach statistical difference between study arms (p = 0.89). In 2 patients on DFO monotherapy during the study and in 1 patient on combined therapy during follow up, heart failure deteriorated fatally. The study was originally powered for 86 participants to determine a 5% difference in LVEF improvement between treatments. The study was prematurely terminated due to slow recruitment and with the achieved sample size of 20 patients there was 80% power to detect an 8.6% difference in EF, which was not demonstrated. Myocardial T2* improved in both arms (combination +1.9 +/- 1.6 ms p = 0.04; and DFO monotherapy +1.9 +/- 1.4 ms p = 0.04), but with no significant difference between treatments (p = 0.65). Liver iron (p = 0.03) and ferritin (p < 0.001) both decreased significantly in only the combination group. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments significantly improved LVEF and myocardial T2*. Although this is the largest and only randomized study in patients with LV decompensation, further prospective evaluation is needed to identify optimal chelation management in these high-risk patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 6 9%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 16 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 October 2018.
All research outputs
#6,389,780
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#424
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,515
of 209,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#6
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 209,654 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.