↓ Skip to main content

Temporal Relation Between Myocardial Fibrosis and Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Association With Baseline Disease Severity and Subsequent Outcome

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Cardiology, September 2017
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 (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
148 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
177 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Temporal Relation Between Myocardial Fibrosis and Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Association With Baseline Disease Severity and Subsequent Outcome
Published in
JAMA Cardiology, September 2017
DOI 10.1001/jamacardio.2017.2511
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erik B. Schelbert, Yaron Fridman, Timothy C. Wong, Hussein Abu Daya, Kayla M. Piehler, Ajay Kadakkal, Christopher A. Miller, Martin Ugander, Maren Maanja, Peter Kellman, Dipan J. Shah, Kaleab Z. Abebe, Marc A. Simon, Giovanni Quarta, Michele Senni, Javed Butler, Javier Diez, Margaret M. Redfield, Mihai Gheorghiade

Abstract

Among myriad changes occurring during the evolution of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), cardiomyocyte-extracellular matrix interactions from excess collagen may affect microvascular, mechanical, and electrical function. To investigate whether myocardial fibrosis (MF) is similarly prevalent both in those with HFpEF and those at risk for HFpEF, similarly associating with disease severity and outcomes. Observational cohort study from June 1, 2010, to September 17, 2015, with follow-up until December 14, 2015, at a cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) center serving an integrated health system. Consecutive patients with preserved systolic function referred for CMR were eligible. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance was used to exclude patients with cardiac amyloidosis (n = 19). Myocardial fibrosis quantified by extracellular volume (ECV) CMR measures. Baseline BNP; subsequent hospitalization for heart failure or death. Of 1174 patients identified (537 [46%] female; median [interquartile range {IQR}] age, 56 [44-66] years), 250 were "at risk" for HFpEF given elevated brain-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) level; 160 had HFpEF by documented clinical diagnosis, and 745 did not have HFpEF. Patients either at risk for HFpEF or with HFpEF demonstrated similarly higher prevalence/extent of MF and worse prognosis compared with patients with no HFpEF. Among those at risk for HFpEF or with HFpEF, the actual diagnosis of HFpEF was not associated with significant differences in MF (median ECV, 28.2%; IQR, 26.2%-30.7% vs 28.3%; IQR, 25.5%-31.4%; P = .60) or prognosis (log-rank 0.8; P = .38). Over a median of 1.9 years, 61 patients at risk for HFpEF or with HFpEF experienced adverse events (19 hospitalization for heart failure, 48 deaths, 6 with both). In those with HFpEF, ECV was associated with baseline log BNP (disease severity surrogate) in multivariable linear regression models, and was associated with outcomes in multivariable Cox regression models (eg, hazard ratio 1.75 per 5% increase in ECV, 95% CI, 1.25-2.45; P = .001 in stepwise model) whether grouped with patients at risk for HFpEF or not. Among myriad changes occurring during the apparent evolution of HFpEF where elevated BNP is prevalent, MF was similarly prevalent in those with or at risk for HFpEF. Conceivably, MF might precede clinical HFpEF diagnosis. Regardless, MF was associated with disease severity (ie, BNP) and outcomes. Whether cells and secretomes mediating MF represent therapeutic targets in HFpEF warrants further evaluation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 148 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Other 10 8%
Student > Master 8 6%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 41 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Engineering 5 4%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 53 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 87. 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 03 February 2022.
All research outputs
#499,903
of 25,795,662 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Cardiology
#466
of 2,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,376
of 325,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Cardiology
#20
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,795,662 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 94.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 325,599 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.