| Title |
Relationship of coronary collateral circulation with eosinophils in patients with unstable angina pectoris
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s95363 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jun Wang, Qun Li, Shi-jing Li, De-zhao Wang, Bu-xing Chen |
| Abstract |
Eosinophils (EOS) have been associated with prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease, and those who showed plenitudinous coronary collateral circulation (CCC) often have good clinical consequences. However, the relationship between EOS and CCC was seldom reported. To investigate the relationship between EOS and CCC development in patients with unstable angina pectoris (UAP). The study population consisted of 502 consecutive patients with UAP who underwent coronary angiography and coronary stenosis ≥80%. CCC was graded according to the Rentrop grading system of 0-3. Rentrop grades of 0 and 1 indicated low-grade CCC group, whereas grades 2 and 3 indicated high-grade CCC group. The EOS was significantly higher in the high-grade CCC group compared with the low-grade CCC group. In multiple logistic regression analysis, EOS (odds ratio: 1.969; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.210-3.3205; P=0.006) and neutrophil count (odds ratio: 0.757; 95% CI: 0.584-0.981; P=0.035) were predictors of high-grade CCC development. EOS of >0.12×10(9)/L could independently predict high-grade CCC with 72.5% sensitivity and 58.4% specificity (area under the curve: 0.681; 95% CI: 0.632-0.729). EOS were associated with high-grade CCC in patients with UAP with coronary stenosis ≥80%. Increased EOS count may play an important role in the development of CCC in patients with UAP. |
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 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 13% |
| Researcher | 1 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
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 02 February 2016.
All research outputs
#19,942,887
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,407
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,477
of 399,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#27
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 399,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.