↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, August 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
49 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation in Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy
Published in
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology, August 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jacep.2018.06.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katja Zeppenfeld

Abstract

Catheter ablation is being increasingly performed as adjunctive treatment to prevent recurrent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapies in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and ventricular tachycardia (VT). In the context of VT ablation, nonischemic cardiomyopathy usually refers to dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) as one morphological phenotype. Over the past decades, progress has been made to better characterize distinct subtypes and to differentiate between causes of DCM, which has important practical and prognostic implications. The goal of this review is to summarize available data on VT ablation in patients with DCM and, more specifically, review procedural and outcome data in specific etiologies and substrate location. It will focus on our current understanding of nonischemic scars, as well as the value of multimodal imaging, image integration, and electroanatomic mapping for substrate identification, procedural planning, and ablation. In addition, recent findings from whole human heart histology of patients with DCM and VT and their potential implications for imaging and mapping will be discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 6 8%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 17 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 51%
Computer Science 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Chemistry 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 22 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 07 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,419,105
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#302
of 1,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,531
of 344,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
#10
of 54 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 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 344,555 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.