↓ Skip to main content

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
209 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
Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13023-016-0407-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kalliopi Pilichou, Gaetano Thiene, Barbara Bauce, Ilaria Rigato, Elisabetta Lazzarini, Federico Migliore, Martina Perazzolo Marra, Stefania Rizzo, Alessandro Zorzi, Luciano Daliento, Domenico Corrado, Cristina Basso

Abstract

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (AC) is a heart muscle disease clinically characterized by life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias and pathologically by an acquired and progressive dystrophy of the ventricular myocardium with fibro-fatty replacement. Due to an estimated prevalence of 1:2000-1:5000, AC is listed among rare diseases. A familial background consistent with an autosomal-dominant trait of inheritance is present in most of AC patients; recessive variants have also been reported, either or not associated with palmoplantar keratoderma and woolly hair. AC-causing genes mostly encode major components of the cardiac desmosome and up to 50 % of AC probands harbor mutations in one of them. Mutations in non-desmosomal genes have been also described in a minority of AC patients, predisposing to the same or an overlapping disease phenotype. Compound/digenic heterozygosity was identified in up to 25 % of AC-causing desmosomal gene mutation carriers, in part explaining the phenotypic variability. Abnormal trafficking of intercellular proteins to the intercalated discs of cardiomyocytes and Wnt/beta catenin and Hippo signaling pathways have been implicated in disease pathogenesis.AC is a major cause of sudden death in the young and in athletes. The clinical picture may include a sub-clinical phase; an overt electrical disorder; and right ventricular or biventricular pump failure. Ventricular fibrillation can occur at any stage. Genotype-phenotype correlation studies led to identify biventricular and dominant left ventricular variants, thus supporting the use of the broader term AC.Since there is no "gold standard" to reach the diagnosis of AC, multiple categories of diagnostic information have been combined and the criteria recently updated, to improve diagnostic sensitivity while maintaining specificity. Among diagnostic tools, contrast enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance is playing a major role in detecting left dominant forms of AC, even preceding morpho-functional abnormalities. The main differential diagnoses are idiopathic right ventricular outflow tract tachycardia, myocarditis, sarcoidosis, dilated cardiomyopathy, right ventricular infarction, congenital heart diseases with right ventricular overload and athlete heart. A positive genetic test in the affected AC proband allows early identification of asymptomatic carriers by cascade genetic screening of family members. Risk stratification remains a major clinical challenge and antiarrhythmic drugs, catheter ablation and implantable cardioverter defibrillator are the currently available therapeutic tools. Sport disqualification is life-saving, since effort is a major trigger not only of electrical instability but also of disease onset and progression. We review the current knowledge of this rare cardiomyopathy, suggesting a flowchart for primary care clinicians and geneticists.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 207 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 11%
Researcher 20 10%
Student > Master 20 10%
Other 20 10%
Other 35 17%
Unknown 59 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 68 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 03 July 2021.
All research outputs
#4,616,379
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#615
of 2,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,006
of 300,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#10
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 300,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.