↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the current reasons for undergoing pharmacologic stress during echocardiographic and radionuclide stress testing

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of the current reasons for undergoing pharmacologic stress during echocardiographic and radionuclide stress testing
Published in
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12350-016-0398-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edgar Argulian, Jose Ricardo F Po, Seth Uretsky, Kiran K Kommaraju, Suketukumar Patel, Vikram Agarwal, Randy Cohen, Alan Rozanski

Abstract

Symptom-limited exercise is the preferred method of cardiac stress testing, but pharmacologic testing has been increasing over time. The exact reasons for pharmacologic stress testing have not been rigorously categorized. Thus, we systematically explored the reasons for pharmacologic stress testing in patients referred for cardiac stress imaging. We studied consecutive patients referred for stress imaging [stress echocardiography or radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI)] at Mount Sinai St Luke's hospital between August 2013 and April 2014. Baseline information was obtained using a standardized questionnaire and a trained physician triaged the patient for symptom-limited exercise stress testing or pharmacologic stress testing. In total, 551(48%) of our entire stress cohort underwent cardiac imaging following initial exercise testing and 589 (52%) underwent imaging with initial pharmacologic stress testing. Deconditioning and inability to walk (primarily due to musculoskeletal conditions) constituted the top two reasons for performing pharmacologic stress, followed by frailty, left bundle branch block (for MPI), resting wall motion abnormality (for echocardiography), and failed exercise attempts. The reasons for performing pharmacologic stress testing were similar in the MPI and echocardiography patients, despite a much higher level of disease acuity in the MPI group. We have applied a systematic approach for categorizing the reasons for pharmacologic stress. These reasons are heterogeneous, but similar across MPI and echo stress laboratories.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 11 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 13 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 27 February 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,839
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,582
of 313,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#46
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 313,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.