| Title |
The EXERRT trial: “EXErcise to Regadenoson in Recovery Trial”: A phase 3b, open-label, parallel group, randomized, multicenter study to assess regadenoson administration following an inadequate exercise stress test as compared to regadenoson without exercise for myocardial perfusion imaging using a SPECT protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-017-0813-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gregory S. Thomas, S. James Cullom, Therese M. Kitt, Kathleen M. Feaheny, Karthikeyan Ananthasubramaniam, Robert J. Gropler, Diwakar Jain, Randall C. Thompson |
| Abstract |
This study assessed the non-inferiority and safety of regadenoson administration during recovery from inadequate exercise compared with administration without exercise. Patients unable to achieve adequate exercise stress were randomized to regadenoson 0.4 mg either during recovery (Ex-Reg) or 1 hour after inadequate exercise (Regadenoson) (MPI1). All patients also underwent non-exercise regadenoson MPI 1-14 days later (MPI2). The number of segments with reversible perfusion defects (RPDs) detected using single photon emission computerized tomography imaging was categorized. The primary analysis evaluated the majority agreement rate between Ex-Reg and Regadenoson groups. 1,147 patients were randomized. The lower bound of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in agreement rates (-6%) was above the -7.5% non-inferiority margin, demonstrating non-inferiority of Ex-Reg to Regadenoson. Adverse events were numerically less with Ex-Reg (MPI1). In the Ex-Reg group, one patient developed an acute coronary syndrome and another had a myocardial infarction following regadenoson after exercise. Upon review, both had electrocardiographic changes consistent with ischemia prior to regadenoson. Administering regadenoson during recovery from inadequate exercise results in comparable categorization of segments with RPDs and with careful monitoring appears to be well tolerated in patients without signs/symptoms of ischemia during exercise and recovery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 4 | 80% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 20 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 23 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 11 January 2019.
All research outputs
#3,010,292
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#105
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,494
of 323,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 323,958 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.