↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Effects of no-reflow phenomenon on ventricular systolic synchrony in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Effects of no-reflow phenomenon on ventricular systolic synchrony in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s107808
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liang Li, Le Wang, Gang Liu, Mingqi Zheng, Jun Liu

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of no-reflow phenomenon on ventricular systolic synchrony via myocardial blush grades (MBGs) in patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). All patients were divided into two groups and assessed by MBGs. To observe the parameters of the left ventricular function and left ventricular systolic synchrony, equilibrium radionuclide angiography was performed 1 week after PCI and repeated 6 months after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Measurement data were compared and analyzed by the Student's t-test, and the count data were evaluated by the χ (2) test. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess the contribution of confounding factors. A total of 100 patients were enrolled in this study: 26 in the no-reflow and 74 in the reflow group. There was no significant difference in terms of age, sex, hypertension history, diabetes history, hyperlipidemia history, and smoking history between the two groups. However, the incidence rate of heart failure with Killip's grade ≥2 in the no-reflow group was significantly higher than that in the reflow group (38.46% vs 18.92%, P<0.05). Six months after the AMI-PCI, the left ventricular ejection fraction, peak ejection rate, and peak filling rate in the no-reflow group were significantly lower than those in the reflow group (t=2.21, 2.29, and 2.03, P<0.05 for all comparisons), but the values of the time to peak ejection rate, time to peak filling rate, phase shift, full width at half maximum, and peak phase standard deviation were all higher (t=2.41, 2.46, 2.00, 2.55, and 2.49, P<0.05 for all comparisons), and the incidence rate of major adverse cardiac events in the no-reflow group was also more elevated than that in the reflow group (53.85% vs 8.11%, χ (2)=34.49, P<0.001). The no-reflow phenomenon identified by MBGs reflects the no-reperfusion status in the myocardium in the infarction-related zone after AMI. The directly caused reduction in the left ventricular systolic synchrony performance leads to adverse long-term outcomes in patients with AMI.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 25%
Student > Master 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 2 17%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 33%
Computer Science 1 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 8%
Social Sciences 1 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%

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 27 June 2016.
All research outputs
#7,834,178
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#642
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,264
of 261,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#39
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. 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 261,821 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.