↓ Skip to main content

Long-term Outcomes Associated With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Adults With Chronic Kidney Disease

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, March 2018
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 (98th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
22 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
55 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Long-term Outcomes Associated With Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator in Adults With Chronic Kidney Disease
Published in
JAMA Internal Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8462
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nisha Bansal, Adam Szpiro, Kristi Reynolds, David H. Smith, David J. Magid, Jerry H. Gurwitz, Frederick Masoudi, Robert T. Greenlee, Grace H. Tabada, Sue Hee Sung, Ashveena Dighe, Alan S. Go

Abstract

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common in adults with heart failure and is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. Randomized trials of participants without CKD have demonstrated that implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) decrease the risk of arrhythmic death in selected patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) heart failure. However, whether ICDs improve clinical outcomes in patients with CKD is not well elucidated. To examine the association of primary prevention ICDs with risk of death and hospitalization in a community-based population of potentially ICD-eligible patients who had heart failure with reduced LVEF and CKD. This noninterventional cohort study included adults with heart failure and an LVEF of 40% or less and measures of serum creatinine levels available from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2012, who were enrolled in 4 Kaiser Permanente health care delivery systems. Chronic kidney disease was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Patients who received and did not receive an ICD were matched (1:3) on CKD status, age, and high-dimensional propensity score to receive an ICD. Follow-up was completed on December 31, 2013. Data were analyzed from 2015 to 2017. Placement of an ICD. All-cause death, hospitalizations due to heart failure, and any-cause hospitalizations. A total of 5877 matched eligible adults with CKD (1556 with an ICD and 4321 without an ICD) were identified (4049 men [68.9%] and 1828 women [31.1%]; mean [SD] age, 72.9 [8.2] years). In models adjusted for demographics, comorbidity, and cardiovascular medication use, no difference was found in all-cause mortality between patients with CKD in the ICD vs non-ICD groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.06). However, ICD placement was associated with increased risk of subsequent hospitalization due to heart failure (adjusted relative risk, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.33-1.60) and any-cause hospitalization (adjusted relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.20-1.30) among patients with CKD. In a large, contemporary, noninterventional study of community-based patients with heart failure and CKD, ICD placement was not significantly associated with improved survival but was associated with increased risk for subsequent hospitalization due to heart failure and all-cause hospitalization. The potential risks and benefits of ICDs should be carefully considered in patients with heart failure and CKD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Other 6 9%
Student > Master 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 23 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 43%
Engineering 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 28 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 203. 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 16 July 2020.
All research outputs
#198,180
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#1,038
of 11,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,521
of 346,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#29
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,722 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 85.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 346,100 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 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 72% of its contemporaries.