↓ Skip to main content

Left Ventricular Dysfunction in Cancer Treatment Is it Relevant?

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Heart Failure, December 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
127 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
Left Ventricular Dysfunction in Cancer Treatment Is it Relevant?
Published in
JACC: Heart Failure, December 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jchf.2017.08.024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Kenigsberg, Anton Wellstein, Ana Barac

Abstract

Contemporary cancer therapies have dramatically improved cancer-free and overall survival but have been accompanied by increasing cancer treatment-related cardiovascular toxicity, including left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. Previously, systemic chemotherapy with anthracyclines and radiation therapy were the only cancer treatments with significant cardiotoxicity. However, modern targeted cancer therapies, including HER2 inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), proteasome inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors, have all been associated with adverse cardiovascular events. As cancer treatment paradigms successfully move toward prolonged targeted therapy, cardiologists are increasingly needed to assess cardiotoxicity risk and manage asymptomatic and symptomatic LV systolic dysfunction. This state of the art review summarizes the present knowledge about the mechanisms and clinical practices of screening, diagnosis, and management of LV dysfunction associated with cancer therapeutic regimens. We utilize the framework of the ACCF/AHA stages of heart failure (HF) to summarize current evidence for risk stratification and modification (Stage A HF), asymptomatic structural heart disease detection and treatment (Stage B HF), and reduction of HF morbidity and mortality (Stages C and D HF) during cancer treatment and in survivorship. We also present new clinical practice challenges and opportunities for active engagement of cardiologists with multidisciplinary cancer treatment teams in order to ensure optimal patient outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 127 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 110 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 18%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Other 10 9%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 30 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 45%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 37 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. 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 10 May 2022.
All research outputs
#632,303
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Heart Failure
#168
of 1,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,186
of 446,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Heart Failure
#7
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 446,120 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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.