↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Three cases of systemic amyloidosis successfully diagnosed by subcutaneous fat tissue biopsy of the hip

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Three cases of systemic amyloidosis successfully diagnosed by subcutaneous fat tissue biopsy of the hip
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/cia.s110636
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masahisa Arahata, Shigeru Shimadoi, Satosi Yamatani, Shin-ichi Hayashi, Shigeharu Miwa, Hidesaku Asakura, Shinji Nakao

Abstract

Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of the abdominal fat pad is considered to be a minimally invasive procedure for diagnosing systemic amyloidosis. However, this procedure is sometimes difficult and can be dangerous for elderly patients whose abdominal fat layer is thin because of malnutrition. In such cases, alternative diagnostic methods are required. We report three elderly patients with heart failure complicated by malnutrition. In all cases, electrocardiogram showed low voltage in the limb leads and a pseudoinfarct pattern in the chest leads, and echocardiography showed left ventricular wall thickening with granular sparkling appearance. These patients were suspected of having amyloid cardiomyopathy but could not undergo myocardial biopsies because of their poor conditions. After failed attempts at biopsy of the abdominal fat pad or the other organs, subcutaneous fat tissue biopsy over the hip led to the diagnosis of systemic amyloidosis with cardiomyopathy. The resultant diagnosis guided us to choose the appropriate treatment for the patients. This article illustrates that subcutaneous fat tissue biopsy of the hip could be a useful procedure for diagnosing systemic amyloidosis in elderly patients, particularly when a fat tissue biopsy of the abdomen is associated with a high risk of complications because of malnutrition.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 13%
Unknown 7 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Student > Master 1 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Other 2 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 88%
Unspecified 1 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 August 2016.
All research outputs
#5,922,868
of 8,183,022 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#665
of 984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,573
of 257,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#37
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,183,022 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 984 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 257,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.