↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Comparing Cardiac Magnetic Resonance–Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Treatment of Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Results From a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
23 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Comparing Cardiac Magnetic Resonance–Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Treatment of Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Results From a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging, July 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.05.007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominik Buckert, Simon Witzel, Jürgen M. Steinacker, Wolfgang Rottbauer, Peter Bernhardt

Abstract

The purpose of this study was the prospective and randomized evaluation of cardiovascular endpoints and quality of life in patients with stable coronary artery disease comparing a cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-based management strategy with a coronary angiography-based approach. Evidence from trials prospectively evaluating the role of CMR in clinical pathways and decision processes is limited. Patients with symptomatic CAD were randomized to diagnostic coronary angiography (group 1) or adenosine stress CMR (group 2). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction. Quality of life was assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire at baseline and during follow-up. Two hundred patients were enrolled. In group 1, 45 revascularizations (45.9%) were performed. In group 2, 27 patients (28.1%) were referred to revascularization because of ischemia on CMR. At 12-month follow-up, 7 primary events occurred: 3 in group 1 (event rate 3.1%) and 4 in group 2 (event rate 4.2%), with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.72). Within the next 2 years, 6 additional events could be observed, giving 4 events in group 1 and 9 events in group 2 (event rate 4.1% vs. 9.4%; p = 0.25). Group 2 showed significant quality-of-life improvement after 1 year in comparison to group 1. A CMR-based management strategy for patients with stable coronary artery disease was safe, reduced revascularization procedures, and resulted in better quality of life at 12-month follow-up, though noninferiority could not be proved. Optimal timing for reassessment remains to be investigated. (Magnetic Resonance Adenosine Perfusion Imaging as Gatekeeper of Invasive Coronary Intervention [MAGnet]; NCT02580851).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 %
Researcher 8 17%
Other 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 20 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Materials Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 19 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,243,775
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
#405
of 2,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,289
of 341,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
#14
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 85% 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 341,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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 73% of its contemporaries.