| Title |
Assessment of the fate of myocardial necrosis by serial myocardial perfusion imaging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-016-0751-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesco Nudi, Natale Di Belardino, Annamaria Pinto, Enrica Procaccini, Giandomenico Neri, Orazio Schillaci, Fabrizio Tomai, Giacomo Frati, Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai |
| Abstract |
Myocardial necrosis after myocardial infarction (MI) is common; extent and severity are however variable. The pattern is recognized by myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) as fixed perfusion defects (FPD). The fate of such FPD is not well appraised. This study addressed this important issue in a large number of patients undergoing serial MPI in relation to type of intervening therapy. Patients with prior MI or MPI-evidence of myocardial necrosis undergoing serial MPI without intervening acute coronary syndromes were included. The fate of necrosis by MPI on per-patient and per-region analysis was analyzed, factoring also the impact of intervening coronary revascularization (CR). A total of 3691 patients with 25,837 regions were identified, including 1413 (38.3%) subjects with 3358 (13.0%) regions exhibiting necrosis. Serial MPI after 29±21 months confirmed the persistent presence of myocardial necrosis FPD in the vast majority of patients and regions (86%); the consistency was even higher in the presence of moderate or severe necrosis (99%). Neither type nor site of CR significantly impacted on the presence and extent of myocardial necrosis at multivariable analysis. The finding of myocardial necrosis by MPI remains highly consistent over time, and is not significantly altered by CR. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 33% |
| Researcher | 2 | 22% |
| Other | 2 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 56% |
| Engineering | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 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 19 January 2017.
All research outputs
#16,048,009
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,124
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,971
of 423,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#7
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 2,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 423,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 65% of its contemporaries.