↓ Skip to main content

How to manage various arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in the cardiovascular intensive care

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intensive Care, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
4 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
How to manage various arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death in the cardiovascular intensive care
Published in
Journal of Intensive Care, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40560-018-0292-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoshinori Kobayashi

Abstract

In the clinical practice of cardiovascular critical care, we often observe a variety of arrhythmias in the patients either with (secondary) or without (idiopathic) underlying heart diseases. In this manuscript, the clinical background and management of various arrhythmias treated in the CCU/ICU will be reviewed. The mechanism and background of lethal ventricular tachyarrhythmias vary as time elapses after the onset of MI that should be carefully considered to select a most suitable therapy. In the category of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, several diseases are known to be complicated by the various ventricular tachyarrhythmias with some specific mechanisms. According to the large-scale registry data, the most common arrhythmia is atrioventricular block. It is essential for the decision of permanent pacemaker indication to rule out the presence of transient causes such as ischemia and electrolyte abnormalities. The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is very high in the patients with heart failure (HF) and myocardial infarction (MI). AF and HF have a reciprocal causal relationship; thus, both are associated with the poor prognosis. Paroxysmal AF occurs in 5 to 20% during the acute phase of MI and triggered by several specific factors including pump failure, atrial ischemia, and autonomic instability. After the total management of patients with various arrhythmias and basic heart diseases, the risk of sudden cardiac death should be stratified for each patient to assess the individual need for preventive therapies. Finally, it is recommended that the modalities of the treatment and prophylaxis should be selected on a case-by-case basis in the scene of critical care.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 29 24%
Other 11 9%
Researcher 7 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 4%
Student > Master 5 4%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 52 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 21%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Chemistry 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 60 50%
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 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,506,823
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#397
of 516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,838
of 329,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 329,180 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.