↓ Skip to main content

Prediction of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy using left ventricular pacing lead position and cardiovascular magnetic resonance derived wall motion patterns: a prospective cohort 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
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Prediction of response to cardiac resynchronization therapy using left ventricular pacing lead position and cardiovascular magnetic resonance derived wall motion patterns: a prospective cohort study
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12968-015-0158-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory R. Hartlage, Jonathan D. Suever, Stephanie Clement-Guinaudeau, Patrick T. Strickland, Nima Ghasemzadeh, R. Patrick Magrath, Ankit Parikh, Stamatios Lerakis, Michael H. Hoskins, Angel R. Leon, Michael S. Lloyd, John N. Oshinski

Abstract

Despite marked benefits in many heart failure patients, a considerable proportion of patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) fail to respond appropriately. Recently, a "U-shaped" (type II) wall motion pattern identified by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been associated with improved CRT response compared to a homogenous (type I) wall motion pattern. There is also evidence that a left ventricular (LV) lead localized to the latest contracting LV site predicts superior response, compared to an LV lead localized remotely from the latest contracting LV site. We prospectively evaluated patients undergoing CRT with pre-procedural CMR to determine the presence of type I and type II wall motion patterns and pre-procedural echocardiography to determine end systolic volume (ESV). We assessed the final LV lead position on post-procedural fluoroscopic images to determine whether the lead was positioned concordant to or remote from the latest contracting LV site. CRT response was defined as a ≥ 15 % reduction in ESV on a 6 month follow-up echocardiogram. The study included 33 patients meeting conventional indications for CRT with a mean New York Heart Association class of 2.8 ± 0.4 and mean LV ejection fraction of 28 ± 9 %. Overall, 55 % of patients were echocardiographic responders by ESV criteria. Patients with both a type II pattern and an LV lead concordant to the latest contracting site (T2CL) had a response rate of 92 %, compared to a response rate of 33 % for those without T2CL (p = 0.003). T2CL was the only independent predictor of response on multivariate analysis (odds ratio 18, 95 % confidence interval 1.6-206; p = 0.018). T2CL resulted in significant incremental improvement in prediction of echocardiographic response (increase in the area under the receiver operator curve from 0.69 to 0.84; p = 0.038). The presence of a type II wall motion pattern on CMR and a concordant LV lead predicts superior CRT response. Improving patient selection by evaluating wall motion pattern and targeting LV lead placement may ultimately improve the response rate to CRT.

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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 24%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 43%
Engineering 8 13%
Computer Science 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 17 27%
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 20 July 2015.
All research outputs
#8,406,430
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#676
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,388
of 277,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#28
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 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 7.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 277,086 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 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.