↓ Skip to main content

The role of the renal afferent and efferent nerve fibers in heart failure

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

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
The role of the renal afferent and efferent nerve fibers in heart failure
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2015.00270
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsea C. Booth, Clive N. May, Song T. Yao

Abstract

Renal nerves contain afferent, sensory and efferent, sympathetic nerve fibers. In heart failure (HF) there is an increase in renal sympathetic nerve activity (RSNA), which can lead to renal vasoconstriction, increased renin release and sodium retention. These changes are thought to contribute to renal dysfunction, which is predictive of poor outcome in patients with HF. In contrast, the role of the renal afferent nerves remains largely unexplored in HF. This is somewhat surprising as there are multiple triggers in HF that have the potential to increase afferent nerve activity, including increased venous pressure and reduced kidney perfusion. Some of the few studies investigating renal afferents in HF have suggested that at least the sympatho-inhibitory reno-renal reflex is blunted. In experimentally induced HF, renal denervation, both surgical and catheter-based, has been associated with some improvements in renal and cardiac function. It remains unknown whether the effects are due to removal of the efferent renal nerve fibers or afferent renal nerve fibers, or a combination of both. Here, we review the effects of HF on renal efferent and afferent nerve function and critically assess the latest evidence supporting renal denervation as a potential treatment in HF.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 %
Sweden 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 47 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Professor 4 8%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 13 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 10%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 14 29%
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 09 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,297,057
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#6,533
of 13,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,101
of 274,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#48
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 274,923 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.