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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Integrated Assessment of Left Ventricular Electrical Activation and Myocardial Strain Mapping in Heart Failure Patients A Holistic Diagnostic Approach for Endocardial Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy, Ablation of Ventricular Tachycardia, and Biological Therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacep.2017.08.011 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesco Maffessanti, Frits W. Prinzen, Giulio Conte, François Regoli, Maria Luce Caputo, Daniel Suerder, Tiziano Moccetti, Francesco Faletra, Rolf Krause, Angelo Auricchio |
| Abstract |
This study sought to test the accuracy of strain measurements based on anatomo-electromechanical mapping (AEMM) measurements compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tagging, to evaluate the diagnostic value of AEMM-based strain measurements in the assessment of myocardial viability, and the additional value of AEMM over peak-to-peak local voltages. The in vivo identification of viable tissue, evaluation of mechanical contraction, and simultaneous left ventricular activation is currently achieved using multiple complementary techniques. In 33 patients, AEMM maps (NOGA XP, Biologic Delivery Systems, Division of Biosense Webster, a Johnson & Johnson Company, Irwindale, California) and MRI images (Siemens 3T, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) were obtained within 1 month. MRI tagging was used to determine circumferential strain (Ecc) and delayed enhancement to obtain local scar extent (%). Custom software was used to measure Ecc and local area strain (LAS) from the motion field of the AEMM catheter tip. Intertechnique agreement for Ecc was good (R2 = 0.80), with nonsignificant bias (0.01 strain units) and narrow limits of agreement (-0.03 to 0.06). Scar segments showed lower absolute strain amplitudes compared with nonscar segments: Ecc (median [first to third quartile]: nonscar -0.10 [-0.15 to -0.06] vs. scar -0.04 [-0.06 to -0.02]) and LAS (-0.20 [-0.27 to -0.14] vs. -0.09 [-0.14 to -0.06]). AEMM strains accurately discriminated between scar and nonscar segments, in particular LAS (area under the curve: 0.84, accuracy = 0.76), which was superior to peak-to-peak voltages (nonscar 9.5 [6.5 to 13.3] mV vs. scar 5.6 [3.4 to 8.3] mV; area under the curve: 0.75). Combination of LAS and peak-to-peak voltages resulted in 86% accuracy. An integrated AEMM approach can accurately determine local deformation and correlates with the scar extent. This approach has potential immediate application in the diagnosis, delivery of intracardiac therapies, and their intraprocedural evaluation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Italy | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 26% |
| Researcher | 4 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 5 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 26% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 32% |
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 20 November 2022.
All research outputs
#16,108,994
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#1,349
of 1,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,193
of 342,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#43
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 342,648 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.