↓ Skip to main content

Myocardial perfusion is impaired in asymptomatic renal and liver transplant recipients: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Myocardial perfusion is impaired in asymptomatic renal and liver transplant recipients: a cardiovascular magnetic resonance study
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12968-015-0166-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susie Parnham, Jonathan M. Gleadle, Darryl Leong, Suchi Grover, Craig Bradbrook, Richard J. Woodman, Carmine G. De Pasquale, Joseph B. Selvanayagam

Abstract

Myocardial ischemia is a major cause of death in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients, which can be caused by either epicardial or microvascular coronary artery disease (CAD). Although renal transplantation improves survival, cardiovascular disease remains a major cause of mortality in post renal transplant recipients, including those with no significant epicardial CAD pre-transplant. We aim to utilize stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and MR coronary angiography (MRCA) to assess silent myocardial ischemia and epicardial CAD in renal transplant recipients. Forty-five subjects: twenty renal transplant (RT) with no known CAD, fifteen liver transplant (LT) controls without prior CKD and no known CAD, and ten hypertensive (HT) controls underwent stress perfusion CMR and MRCA. A total of 1308 myocardial segments (576 of RT, 468 of LT, and 264 of HT) were compared using mixed linear modeling. Left ventricular mass index, septal diameter and presence of diabetes mellitus were similar between the groups. The mean transmural MPRI was significantly lower in the RT and LT groups compared to HT controls (1.19 ± 0.50 in RT versus 1.23 ± 0.36 in LT versus 2.04 ± 0.32 in HT controls, p < 0.0001), in the subepicardium (1.33 ± 0.57 in RT versus 1.30 ± 0.33 in LT versus 2.01 ± 0.30 in HT controls, p < 0.001), and in the subendocardium (1.19 ± 0.54 in RT versus 1.11 ± 0.31 in LT versus 1.85 ± 0.34 in HT controls, p < 0.0001). Seven (35 %) RT and five (33 %) LT had significant epicardial CAD compared to none in HT controls, p = 0.12. One RT and one LT had LGE suggesting sub-endocardial infarction. RT recipients have impaired myocardial perfusion independent of LVH or diabetes mellitus. The impaired myocardial perfusion in RT is similar to LT without prior renal disease, thus unlikely related to previous CKD. It is not fully explained by the presence of significant epicardial CAD, and therefore most likely represents microvascular CAD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 7 13%
Other 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 18 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 March 2016.
All research outputs
#8,614,805
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#705
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,113
of 277,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#27
of 33 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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 277,999 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.