| Title |
Yield of left ventricular dyssynchrony by gated SPECT MPI in patients with heart failure prior to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator: Characteristics and prediction of cardiac outcome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-015-0310-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nili Zafrir, Tamir Bental, Boris Strasberg, Alejandro Solodky, Israel Mats, Ariel Gutstein, Ran Kornowski |
| Abstract |
Mechanical left ventricular dyssynchrony (MLVD) might contribute in the therapeutic decision-making in patients with heart failure (HF) prior to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Our aim was to assess MLVD in patients with HF prior to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) compared to patients with CRT-D. In a prospective study, patients with LVEF ≤ 35% who were scheduled for ICD or CRT-D, underwent gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging with technetium 99m sestamibi within 3 months prior procedure. MLVD was measured by phase analysis. The study cohort consisted of 143 patients, 71 with ICD and 72 with CRT-D. Age 68.3 ± 11 and LVEF 24 ± 6%. Phase standard deviation (SD) was 62.5 ± 18 and 59.7 ± 20 (P = NS), respectively. During follow-up of 23.7 ± 12.1 months, there were 10 vs 14 cardiac death in ICD and CRT-D, respectively (P = NS), hospitalization for HF, in 34 vs 53 (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, Phase SD was the independent predictor for cardiac death [HR 2.66 (95% CI 1.046-6.768), P = .04]. Kaplan-Meier curves of phase SD of 60° significantly identified ICD patients with and without cardiac deaths and hospitalization for HF exacerbation. MLVD by phase SD can identify patients with cardiac events and predict cardiac death in patients treated with ICD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 27% |
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Librarian | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 57% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 November 2015.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,485
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,350
of 293,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#20
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 293,254 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.