| Title |
Should Primary Prevention ICDs Still Be Placed in Patients with Non-ischemic Cardiomyopathy? A Review of the Evidence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Cardiology Reports, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11886-018-0974-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Harsha V. Ganga, Abhishek Maan, E. Kevin Heist |
| Abstract |
Recent evidence has suggested that implantable defibrillator (ICD) in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) may not offer mortality benefit in the presence of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Despite significant benefits of GDMT and CRT, current evidence is derived from ICD trials that rely predominantly on reduced left ventricular ejection fraction alone (LVEF). The majority of patients with sudden cardiac death (SCD) have LVEF > 30% indicating that LVEF by itself is an inadequate predictor of SCD. The Danish study to assess the efficacy of ICD in patients with non-ischemic systolic heart failure on mortality (DANISH) highlights the importance of better risk stratifying NICM patients for ICD implantation. Assessment of life expectancy, comorbidities, presence of advanced heart failure, etiology of NICM, and the presence of myocardial fibrosis can help risk stratify ICD beyond LVEF. Genetics and biomarkers can be of further assistance in risk stratification. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 56% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Decision Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
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 30 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,594,219
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#747
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#257,383
of 331,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#16
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 331,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.