↓ Skip to main content

Randomized placebo controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of single low-dose intracoronary insulin-like growth factor following percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial…

Overview of attention for article published in American Heart Journal, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Randomized placebo controlled trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of single low-dose intracoronary insulin-like growth factor following percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction (RESUS-AMI)
Published in
American Heart Journal, April 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.03.018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noel M Caplice, Mary C DeVoe, Janet Choi, Darren Dahly, Theodore Murphy, Ernest Spitzer, Robert Van Geuns, Michael M Maher, David Tuite, David M Kerins, Mohammed T Ali, Imtiaz Kalyar, Eoin F Fahy, Wisam Khider, Peter Kelly, Peter P Kearney, Ronan J Curtin, Conor O'Shea, Carl J Vaughan, Joseph A Eustace, Eugene P McFadden

Abstract

Residual and significant postinfarction left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, despite technically successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), remains an important clinical issue. In preclinical models, low-dose insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) has potent cytoprotective and positive cardiac remodeling effects. We studied the safety and efficacy of immediate post-PCI low-dose intracoronary IGF1 infusion in STEMI patients. Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multidose study design, we randomized 47 STEMI patients with significantly reduced (≤40%) LV ejection fraction (LVEF) after successful PCI to single intracoronary infusion of placebo (n = 15), 1.5 ng IGF1 (n = 16), or 15 ng IGF1 (n = 16). All received optimal medical therapy. Safety end points were freedom from hypoglycemia, hypotension, or significant arrhythmias within 1 hour of therapy. The primary efficacy end point was LVEF, and secondary end points were LV volumes, mass, stroke volume, and infarct size at 2-month follow-up, all assessed by magnetic resonance imaging. Treatment effects were estimated by analysis of covariance adjusted for baseline (24 hours) outcome. No significant differences in safety end points occurred between treatment groups out to 30 days (χ2 test, P value = .77). There were no statistically significant differences in baseline (24 hours post STEMI) clinical characteristics or LVEF among groups. LVEF at 2 months, compared to baseline, increased in all groups, with no statistically significant differences related to treatment assignment. However, compared with placebo or 1.5 ng IGF1, treatment with 15 ng IGF1 was associated with a significant improvement in indexed LV end-diastolic volume (P = .018), LV mass (P = .004), and stroke volume (P = .016). Late gadolinium enhancement (±SD) at 2 months was lower in 15 ng IGF1 (34.5 ± 29.6 g) compared to placebo (49.1 ± 19.3 g) or 1.5 ng IGF1 (47.4 ± 22.4 g) treated patients, although the result was not statistically significant (P = .095). In this pilot trial, low-dose IGF1, given after optimal mechanical reperfusion in STEMI, is safe but does not improve LVEF. However, there is a signal for a dose-dependent benefit on post-MI remodeling that may warrant further study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 3 6%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 15 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,175,718
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from American Heart Journal
#4,439
of 5,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,795
of 343,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Heart Journal
#39
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 343,066 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.