↓ Skip to main content

Multicenter Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial Comparing Hemodynamic Optimization Against Echocardiographic Optimization of AV and VV Delay of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy The BRAVO Trial

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, May 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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
40 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Multicenter Randomized Controlled Crossover Trial Comparing Hemodynamic Optimization Against Echocardiographic Optimization of AV and VV Delay of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy The BRAVO Trial
Published in
JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, May 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.02.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zachary I. Whinnett, S.M. Afzal Sohaib, Mark Mason, Edward Duncan, Mark Tanner, David Lefroy, Mohamed Al-Obaidi, Sue Ellery, Francisco Leyva-Leon, Tim Betts, Mark Dayer, Paul Foley, Jon Swinburn, Martin Thomas, Raj Khiani, Tom Wong, Zaheer Yousef, Dominic Rogers, Paul R. Kalra, Vignesh Dhileepan, Katherine March, James Howard, Andreas Kyriacou, Jamil Mayet, Prapa Kanagaratnam, Michael Frenneaux, Alun D. Hughes, Darrel P. Francis

Abstract

BRAVO (British Randomized Controlled Trial of AV and VV Optimization) is a multicenter, randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial comparing echocardiographic optimization of atrioventricular (AV) and interventricular delay with a noninvasive blood pressure method. Cardiac resynchronization therapy including AV delay optimization confers clinical benefit, but the optimization requires time and expertise to perform. This study randomized patients to echocardiographic optimization or hemodynamic optimization using multiple-replicate beat-by-beat noninvasive blood pressure at baseline; after 6 months, participants were crossed over to the other optimization arm of the trial. The primary outcome was exercise capacity, quantified as peak exercise oxygen uptake. Secondary outcome measures were echocardiographic left ventricular (LV) remodeling, quality-of-life scores, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. A total of 401 patients were enrolled, the median age was 69 years, 78% of patients were men, and the New York Heart Association functional class was II in 84% and III in 16%. The primary endpoint, peak oxygen uptake, met the criterion for noninferiority (pnoninferiority = 0.0001), with no significant difference between the hemodynamically optimized arm and echocardiographically optimized arm of the trial (mean difference 0.1 ml/kg/min). Secondary endpoints for noninferiority were also met for symptoms (mean difference in Minnesota score 1; pnoninferiority = 0.002) and hormonal changes (mean change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide -10 pg/ml; pnoninferiority = 0.002). There was no significant difference in LV size (mean change in LV systolic dimension 1 mm; pnoninferiority < 0.001; LV diastolic dimension 0 mm; pnoninferiority <0.001). In 30% of patients the AV delay identified as optimal was more than 20 ms from the nominal setting of 120 ms. Optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy devices by using noninvasive blood pressure is noninferior to echocardiographic optimization. Therefore, noninvasive hemodynamic optimization is an acceptable alternative that has the potential to be automated and thus more easily implemented. (British Randomized Controlled Trial of AV and VV Optimization [BRAVO]; NCT01258829).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 103 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 6 6%
Researcher 6 6%
Student > Master 6 6%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 47 46%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Computer Science 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 49 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 08 November 2022.
All research outputs
#1,647,389
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
#560
of 2,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,716
of 342,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
#20
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 342,098 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.