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 |
Relationship between CMR-derived parameters of ischemia/reperfusion injury and the timing of CMR after reperfused ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-018-0474-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pier-Giorgio Masci, Anna Giulia Pavon, Olivier Muller, Juan-Fernando Iglesias, Gabriella Vincenti, Pierre Monney, Brahim Harbaoui, Eric Eeckhout, Juerg Schwitter |
| Abstract |
To investigate the influence of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) timing after reperfusion on CMR-derived parameters of ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The study included 163 reperfused STEMI patients undergoing CMR during the index hospitalization. Patients were divided according to the time between revascularization and CMR (Trevasc-CMR: Tertile-1 ≤ 43; 43 < Tertile-2 ≤ 93; Tertile-3 > 93 h). T2-mapping derived area-at-risk (AAR) and intramyocardial-hemorrhage (IMH), and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE)-derived infarct size (IS) and microvascular obstruction (MVO) were quantified. T1-mapping was performed before and > 15 min after Gd-based contrast-agent administration yielding extracellular volume (ECV) of infarct. Main factors influencing I/R injury were homogenously balanced across Trevasc-CMR tertiles. T2 values of infarct and remote regions increased with increasing Trevasc-CMR tertiles (infarct: 60.0 ± 4.9 vs 63.5 ± 5.6 vs 64.8 ± 7.5 ms; P < 0.001; remote: 44.3 ± 2.8 vs 46.1 ± 2.8 vs ± 46.1 ± 3.0; P = 0.001). However, T2 value of infarct largely and significantly exceeded that of remote myocardium in each tertile yielding comparable T2-mapping-derived AAR extent throughout Trevasc-CMR tertiles (17 ± 9% vs 19 ± 9% vs 18 ± 8% of LV, respectively, P = 0.385). Similarly, T2-mapping-based IMH detection and quantification were independent of Trevasc-CMR. LGE-derived IS and MVO were not influenced by Trevasc-CMR (IS: 12 ± 9% vs 12 ± 9% vs 14 ± 9% of LV, respectively, P = 0.646). In 68 patients without MVO, T1-mapping based ECV of infarct region was comparable across Trevasc-CMR tertiles (P = 0.470). In STEMI patients, T2 values of infarct and remote myocardium increase with increasing CMR time after revascularization. However, these changes do not give rise to substantial variation of T2-mapping-derived AAR size nor of other CMR-based parameters of I/R. ISRCTN03522116 . Registered 30.4.2018 (retrospectively registered). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 44% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#16,292,673
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,006
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,008
of 341,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#25
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 341,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.