| Title |
Relationship between left ventricular dyssynchrony and scar burden in the genesis of ventricular tachyarrhythmia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-017-1095-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Saurabh Malhotra, Deepak K Pasupula, Ravi K Sharma, Samir Saba, Prem Soman |
| Abstract |
Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) has poor predictive value for ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VT). Other parameters such as LV dyssynchrony (LVD), and LV scar burden have also been individually associated with VT, but the interplay of these factors in the genesis of VT has not been explored. This retrospective study sought to evaluate the relationship between LVD and imaging characteristics of the myocardial substrate in predicting VT. We identified 183 patients (150 men; mean age: 64 ± 14 years and mean LVEF: 23% ± 7%), who received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention and who underwent a gated single-photon emission computed tomography (GSPECT) myocardial perfusion scan prior to ICD implantation. LVD was determined by phase analysis of the GSPECT images. Occurrence of VTs was established through routine ICD interrogations and review of electronic medical records. LVD was present in 136 (74%) patients. VT occurred in 48 (26%) patients. Ninety-eight percent of patient who experienced VT had LVD. Patients without LVD had a significantly better survival free of both sustained and non-sustained VT (HR, 95% CI 4.90, 2.12-11.20; P < 0.0001). The combination of LVD and myocardial scar occupying > 6% of LV myocardium accounted for 83% of all VT events. LVD assessment by GSPECT is strongly associated with incident VT in patients with low LVEF. The combination of LVD and scar burden predicted the majority of VT events. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 29% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 21% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 14% |
| Librarian | 1 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 64% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 November 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,485
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#249,936
of 342,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#24
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 342,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.