↓ Skip to main content

Infarct size following complete revascularization in patients presenting with STEMI: a comparison of immediate and staged in-hospital non-infarct related artery PCI subgroups in the CvLPRIT study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Infarct size following complete revascularization in patients presenting with STEMI: a comparison of immediate and staged in-hospital non-infarct related artery PCI subgroups in the CvLPRIT study
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12968-016-0298-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jamal N. Khan, Sheraz A. Nazir, John P. Greenwood, Miles Dalby, Nick Curzen, Simon Hetherington, Damian J. Kelly, Daniel Blackman, Arne Ring, Charles Peebles, Joyce Wong, Thiagarajah Sasikaran, Marcus Flather, Howard Swanton, Anthony H. Gershlick, Gerry P. McCann

Abstract

The CvLPRIT study showed a trend for improved clinical outcomes in the complete revascularisation (CR) group in those treated with an immediate, as opposed to staged in-hospital approach in patients with multivessel coronary disease undergoing primary percutaneous intervention (PPCI). We aimed to assess infarct size and left ventricular function in patients undergoing immediate compared with staged CR for multivessel disease at PPCI. The Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) substudy of CvLPRIT was a multicentre, prospective, randomized, open label, blinded endpoint trial in PPCI patients with multivessel disease. These data refer to a post-hoc analysis in 93 patients randomized to the CR arm (63 immediate, 30 staged) who completed a pre-discharge CMR scan (median 2 and 4 days respectively) after PPCI. The decision to stage non-IRA revascularization was at the discretion of the treating interventional cardiologist. Patients treated with a staged approach had more visible thrombus (26/30 vs. 31/62, p = 0.001), higher SYNTAX score in the IRA (9.5, 8-16 vs. 8.0, 5.5-11, p = 0.04) and a greater incidence of no-reflow (23.3 % vs. 1.6 % p < 0.001) than those treated with immediate CR. After adjustment for confounders, staged patients had larger infarct size (19.7 % [11.7-37.6] vs. 11.6 % [6.8-18.2] of LV Mass, p = 0.012) and lower ejection fraction (42.2 ± 10 % vs. 47.4 ± 9 %, p = 0.019) compared with immediate CR. Of patients randomized to CR in the CMR substudy of CvLPRIT, those in whom the operator chose to stage revascularization had larger infarct size and lower ejection fraction, which persisted after adjusting for important covariates than those who underwent immediate CR. Prospective randomized trials are needed to assess whether immediate CR results in better clinical outcomes than staged CR. ISRCTN70913605 , Registered 24th February 2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 26%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Master 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 20 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 21 45%
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 18 May 2017.
All research outputs
#19,962,154
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,161
of 1,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,266
of 319,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#31
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 319,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.