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 |
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
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
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
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
#20,233,045
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,165
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,424
of 320,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#31
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 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 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one 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 320,090 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.