↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Is kidney function affecting the management of myocardial infarction? A retrospective cohort study in patients with normal kidney function, chronic kidney disease stage III–V, and ESRD

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 259)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Is kidney function affecting the management of myocardial infarction? A retrospective cohort study in patients with normal kidney function, chronic kidney disease stage III–V, and ESRD
Published in
International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/ijnrd.s91567
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc Saad, Boutros Karam, Geovani Faddoul, Youssef El Douaihy, Harout Yacoub, Hassan Baydoun, Christine Boumitri, Iskandar Barakat, Chadi Saifan, Elie El-Charabaty, Suzanne El Sayegh

Abstract

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are three times more likely to have myocardial infarction (MI) and suffer from increased morbidity and higher mortality. Traditional and unique risk factors are prevalent and constitute challenges for the standard of care. However, CKD patients have been largely excluded from clinical trials and little evidence is available to guide evidence-based treatment of coronary artery disease in patients with CKD. Our objective was to assess whether a difference exists in the management of MI (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) among patients with normal kidney function, CKD stage III-V, and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients. We conducted a retrospective cohort study on patients admitted to Staten Island University Hospital for the diagnosis of MI between January 2005 and December 2012. Patients were assigned to one of three groups according to their kidney function: Data collected on the medical management and the use of statins, platelet inhibitors, beta-blockers, and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers were compared among the three cohorts, as well as medical interventions including: catheterization and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) when indicated. Chi-square test was used to compare the proportions between nominal variables. Binary logistic analysis was used in order to determine associations between treatment modalities and comorbidities, and to account for possible confounding factors. Three hundred and thirty-four patients (mean age 67.2±13.9 years) were included. In terms of management, medical treatment was not different among the three groups. However, cardiac catheterization was performed less in ESRD when compared with no CKD and CKD stage III-V (45.6% vs 74% and 93.9%) (P<0.001). CABG was performed in comparable proportions in the three groups and CABG was not associated with the degree of CKD (P=0.078) in binary logistics regression. Cardiac catheterization on the other hand carried the strongest association among all studied variables (P<0.001). This association was maintained after adjusting for other comorbidities. The length of stay for the three cohorts (non-CKD, CKD stage III-V, and ESRD on hemodialysis) was 16, 17, and 15 days, respectively and was not statistically different. Many observations have reported discrimination of care for patients with CKD considered suboptimal candidates for aggressive management of their cardiac disease. In our study, medical therapy was achieved at high percentage and was comparable among groups of different kidney function. However, kidney disease seems to affect the management of patients with acute MI; percutaneous coronary angiography is not uniformly performed in patients with CKD and ESRD when compared with patients with normal kidney function.

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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 3%
Unknown 39 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 23%
Student > Postgraduate 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 14 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Psychology 2 5%
Unknown 14 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 12 May 2023.
All research outputs
#3,465,429
of 25,658,541 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease
#32
of 259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,482
of 401,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,541 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 401,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.