↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Comprehensive Echocardiographic and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Evaluation Differentiates Among Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Patients, Hypertensive Patients, and Healthy Control…

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
90 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
Title
Comprehensive Echocardiographic and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Evaluation Differentiates Among Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Patients, Hypertensive Patients, and Healthy Control Subjects
Published in
JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, August 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.05.022
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ify R. Mordi, Satnam Singh, Amelia Rudd, Janaki Srinivasan, Michael Frenneaux, Nikolaos Tzemos, Dana K. Dawson

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the utility of a comprehensive imaging protocol including echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance in the diagnosis and differentiation of hypertensive heart disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Hypertension is present in up to 90% of patients with HFpEF and is a major etiological component. Despite current recommendations and diagnostic criteria for HFpEF, no noninvasive imaging technique has as yet shown the ability to identify any structural differences between patients with hypertensive heart disease and HFpEF. We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study of 112 well-characterized patients (62 with HFpEF, 22 with hypertension, and 28 healthy control subjects). All patients underwent cardiopulmonary exercise and biomarker testing and an imaging protocol including echocardiography with speckle-tracking analysis and cardiac magnetic resonance including T1 mapping pre- and post-contrast. Echocardiographic global longitudinal strain (GLS) and extracellular volume (ECV) measured by cardiac magnetic resonance were the only variables able to independently stratify among the 3 groups of patients. ECV was the best technique for differentiation between hypertensive heart disease and HFpEF (ECV area under the curve: 0.88; GLS area under the curve: 0.78; p < 0.001 for both). Using ECV, an optimal cutoff of 31.2% gave 100% sensitivity and 75% specificity. ECV was significantly higher and GLS was significantly reduced in subjects with reduced exercise capacity (lower peak oxygen consumption and higher minute ventilation-carbon dioxide production) (p < 0.001 for both ECV and GLS). Both GLS and ECV are able to independently discriminate between hypertensive heart disease and HFpEF and identify patients with prognostically significant functional limitation. ECV is the best diagnostic discriminatory marker of HFpEF and could be used as a surrogate endpoint for therapeutic studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 90 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 15%
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Postgraduate 16 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Master 10 9%
Other 19 16%
Unknown 28 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 45%
Engineering 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 43 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 17 August 2018.
All research outputs
#892,076
of 25,661,882 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
#247
of 2,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,350
of 309,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
#6
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,661,882 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 309,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.