↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Indications for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy A Comparison of the Major International Guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Heart Failure, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
Title
Indications for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy A Comparison of the Major International Guidelines
Published in
JACC: Heart Failure, April 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jchf.2018.01.022
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camilla Normand, Cecilia Linde, Jagmeet Singh, Kenneth Dickstein

Abstract

This study compares and contrasts the recommended indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) according to the most recent guidelines from international cardiology societies. CRT has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in selected patients with systolic heart failure. Cardiology societies provide guidelines regarding the indications for CRT. As evidence evolves, it is challenging for the guideline committees to review the impact of newer evidence in a timely fashion. Six of the most recent international guidelines providing recommendation concerning CRT implantation ranging from 2011 to 2017 were reviewed. These included guidelines from 2 European, 1 North American, 1 Canadian, and 1 Australian/New Zealand societies and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, specific to the United Kingdom. Although international societies provide consistent recommendations for most CRT indications, differences are found in recommendations for several important patient populations. Specifically, divergent recommendations exist regarding QRS duration, bundle branch morphology, patients in atrial fibrillation, choice of device type (CRT pacemakers vs. CRT defibrillators), and selected patients who are likely to be dependent on right ventricular pacing. The timing of publication of specific guidelines appears to play an essential role in explaining these disparities. Despite general consistency in international guideline recommendations, there remain certain patient populations for whom there are variations in recommendations concerning eligibility for CRT and selection of the most appropriate device in the individual patient.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Master 8 8%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 29 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Computer Science 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Environmental Science 1 <1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 41 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 22 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,101,039
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Heart Failure
#784
of 1,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,990
of 343,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Heart Failure
#31
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,583 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 343,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 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.