↓ Skip to main content

Post-Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Heart Failure, March 2018
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 (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
131 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
272 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
480 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
Post-Myocardial Infarction Heart Failure
Published in
JACC: Heart Failure, March 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jchf.2017.09.015
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Cecilia Bahit, Ajar Kochar, Christopher B. Granger

Abstract

Heart failure (HF) complicating myocardial infarction (MI) is common and may be present at admission or develop during the hospitalization. Among patients with MI, there is a strong relationship between degree of HF and mortality. The optimal management of the patient with HF complicating MI varies according to time since the onset of infarction. Medical therapy for HF after MI includes early (within 24 h) initiation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and early (within 7 days) use of aldosterone antagonists. Alternatively, in patients with MI and ongoing HF, early use (<24 h) of beta-blockers is associated with an increased risk of cardiogenic shock and death. Long-term beta-blocker use after MI is associated with a reduced risk of reinfarction and death. Thus, it is critical to frequently re-evaluate beta-blocker eligibility among patients after MI with HF. Cardiogenic shock is an extreme presentation of HF after MI and is a leading cause of death in the MI setting. The only therapy proven to reduce mortality for patients with cardiogenic shock is early revascularization. Several studies are examining new approaches to mitigate the occurrence and adverse impact of post-MI HF. These studies are testing drugs for HF and diabetes and are evaluating mechanical support devices to bridge patients to recovery or transplantation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 131 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 480 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 480 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 60 13%
Researcher 47 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 9%
Student > Master 36 8%
Student > Postgraduate 32 7%
Other 74 15%
Unknown 186 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 164 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 39 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 3%
Engineering 15 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 2%
Other 33 7%
Unknown 205 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. 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 20 September 2020.
All research outputs
#578,992
of 25,654,566 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Heart Failure
#152
of 1,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,203
of 345,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Heart Failure
#5
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,566 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 1,612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. 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 345,661 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 88% of its contemporaries.