↓ Skip to main content

An assessment of the safety, hemodynamic response, and diagnostic accuracy of commonly used vasodilator stressors in patients with severe aortic stenosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
An assessment of the safety, hemodynamic response, and diagnostic accuracy of commonly used vasodilator stressors in patients with severe aortic stenosis
Published in
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12350-016-0427-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nasir Hussain, Waseem Chaudhry, Alan W Ahlberg, Richard S Amara, Ahmed Elfar, Matthew W Parker, John A Savino, Ruwanthi Titano, Milena J Henzlova, William L Duvall

Abstract

Increasing numbers of patients are undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, which often involves assessment of coronary artery disease ischemic burden. The safety and diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator stress agents in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) has not been established. Patients with severe AS (valve area <1 cm(2)) on echocardiography who underwent vasodilator stress SPECT MPI at two centers were identified. Patients with aortic valve intervention prior to MPI or who underwent concurrent exercise during stress testing were excluded. AS patients were matched to controls without AS based on age, gender, BMI, ejection fraction, and stress agent. Symptoms, serious adverse events, hemodynamic response, and correlation to invasive angiography were assessed. A total of 95 cases were identified with 45% undergoing regadenoson, 31% dipyridamole, and 24% adenosine stress. A significant change in systolic blood pressure (BP), cases vs controls, was observed with adenosine [-17.9 ± 20.1 vs -2.6 ± 24.9 P = .03)], with a trend toward significance with regadenoson [-16.8 ± 20.3 vs -9.4 ± 17.9 (P = .08)] and dipyridamole [-17.8 ± 20.6 vs -9.0 ± 12.1 (P = .05)]. The change in heart rate was significantly different only for adenosine [5.3 ± 16.8 vs 14.2 ± 10.8 (P = .04)]. Overall, 45% of cases vs 24% of controls (P = .004) had a >20 mmHg decrease in systolic BP. Age, BMI, and resting systolic BP were related to a >20 mmHg decrease in systolic BP on univariate analysis, although only higher resting systolic BP was a predictor on multivariate analysis. In 33 patients who underwent angiography, the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator stress MPI was 77%, 69%, and 73%, respectively. No serious adverse events occurred in the severe AS patients. Severe AS patients are more likely to have a hemodynamically significant decrease in systolic BP with vasodilator stress. There were no serious adverse events in this severe AS cohort with good diagnostic performance of MPI compared to angiography.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 9 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Computer Science 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,984,826
of 25,692,343 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,049
of 2,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,508
of 315,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#14
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,692,343 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,050 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 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 315,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 61% of its contemporaries.