↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Remote ischemic preconditioning in myocardial protection in hemodialysis patients

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Remote ischemic preconditioning in myocardial protection in hemodialysis patients
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s144385
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcelo R Bacci, Livia Y Vasconcelos, Neif Murad, Antonio Carlos P Chagas, Ana Carolina Capuano, Beatriz CA Alves, Edimar C Pereira, Ligia A Azzalis, Virginia BC Junqueira, Fernando LA Fonseca

Abstract

Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a procedure that generates a brief period of ischemia followed by reperfusion. The role of RIPC in protecting myocardial ischemia during hemodialysis is not yet established. The aim of the study was to evaluate RIPC myocardial protection as evaluated by ultrasensitive I troponin in hemodialysis outpatients. A double-blind randomized trial with two groups: intervention submitted to RIPC and control group without RIPC. Intervention group received RIPC in three consecutive hemodialysis sessions. Blood samples were taken before and after each session. Blood urea nitrogen for calculation of single-pool Kt/v and ultrasensitive I troponin were measured to evaluate dialysis adequacy and myocardial injury. A total of 47 patients were randomized. About 60.8% were men and 54% were diabetic. The mean single-pool Kt/v was 1.51 in the intervention group and 1.49 in control. The ultrasensitive troponin I measured no significant change from the time of collection: before or after dialysis. The RIPC applied in three consecutive sessions did not demonstrate superiority to control, therefore another study tested RIPC in 12 consecutive sessions with a positive result in myocardial protection. In our study, more than half of the patients were diabetic. Diabetic patients have a trend to show a lower response to RIPC because of the greater presence of collateral coronary circulation. In summary, in this model there was no interference of RIPC in ultrasensitive troponin I values, but troponin had a high negative predictive value for myocardial infarction in all tested models.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Other 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 36%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Decision Sciences 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 May 2018.
All research outputs
#20,743,007
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#1,171
of 1,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,141
of 326,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#10
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,488 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 326,977 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.