↓ Skip to main content

Approach to cardio-oncologic patients with special focus on patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices planned for radiotherapy: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey

Overview of attention for article published in Europace, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Approach to cardio-oncologic patients with special focus on patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices planned for radiotherapy: results of the European Heart Rhythm Association survey
Published in
Europace, August 2017
DOI 10.1093/europace/eux195
Pubmed ID
Authors

Radosław Lenarczyk, Tatjana S. Potpara, Kristina H. Haugaa, Jean-Claude Deharo, Antonio Hernandez-Madrid, Maria del Carmen Exposito Pineda, Marek Kiliszek, Nikolaos Dagres

Abstract

The aim of this European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) survey was to evaluate clinical practice regarding cardio-oncologic patients, with special focus on patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) planned for anticancer radiotherapy (RT), among members of the EHRA electrophysiology research network. Of the 36 responding centres, 89% managed patients who were diagnosed or treated oncologically, and this diagnosis affected 1-5% of cardiovascular patients in majority of centres (57%). The main side effects of anticancer therapy in patients treated by cardiologists were thromboembolic complications and left ventricular dysfunction (both reported as 'frequent' by 43% of the centres). The main agents associated with complications were anthracyclines, RT, and monoclonal antibodies. Echocardiography was the most common method of screening for cardiovascular complications (93%), and 10% of the centres did not routinely screen for treatment-induced cardiotoxicity. Opinions on the safe radiation dose, methods of device shielding, and risk calculation prior to RT in CIED patients differed among centres. Precaution measures in high-risk CIED patients were very heterogeneous among centres. Our survey has shown that the awareness of cardiac consequences of anticancer therapy is high, despite relatively low proportion of patients treated oncologically among all cardiovascular patients. There is a consensus of which screening methods should be used for cardiotoxicity of anticancer treatment, but the apprehension of screening necessity is low. Methods of risk assessment and safety measures in CIED patients undergoing RT are very heterogeneous among the European centres, underscoring the need for standardization of the approach to cardio-oncologic patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 18%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Decision Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,883,079
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Europace
#1,409
of 3,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,262
of 327,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Europace
#23
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,091 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 327,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.