| Title |
Association of epicardial adipose tissue thickness and inflammation parameters with CHA2DS2-VASc score in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s94955 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Serkan Akdag, Hakki Simsek, Musa Sahin, Aytac Akyol, Ramazan Duz, Naci Babat |
| Abstract |
Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT), mean platelet volume (MPV), platelet-to- lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) have been shown to be helpful in predicting adverse cardiovascular events. However, to date, in the literature, there have been no studies demonstrating the relationship between EAT, MPV, PLR, NLR, and thromboembolism risk in atrial fibrillation (AF). Therefore, we examined the relationship between EAT, MPV, PLR, NLR, and CHA2DS2-VASc score used for the evaluation of thromboembolism risk in patients with AF. The study included 96 consecutive patients with AF and 52 age- and sex-matched control subjects. We calculated CHA2DS2-VASc risk score for each patient and measured baseline EAT thickness, MPV, PLR, NLR, left atrial volume index, and left ventricular ejection fraction. The group with high CHA2DS2-VASc score had higher EAT (7.2±1.5 vs 5.9±1.2 mm, P<0.001), MPV (9.1±1.1 vs 8.4±1.0 fL, P=0.004), PLR (152.3±28.4 vs 126.7±25.4, P=0.001), and NLR (4.0±1.6 vs 3.2±1.3, P<0.001) compared to group with low-intermediate CHA2DS2-VASc score. Moreover, CHA2DS2-VASc score was found to be positively correlated with EAT (r=0.623, P<0.001), MPV (r=0.350, P=0.004), PLR (r=0.398, P=0.001), and NLR (r=0.518, P<0.001). Our study results demonstrated that EAT thickness, MPV, PLR, and NLR were associated with the thromboembolic risk exhibited by CHA2DS2-VASc score in patients with nonvalvular AF. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 20% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 53% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
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 09 November 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#926
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,399
of 294,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#47
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 294,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.