↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Article Metrics

Ambulatory Inotrope Infusions in Advanced Heart Failure

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Heart Failure, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
63 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Ambulatory Inotrope Infusions in Advanced Heart Failure
Published in
JACC: Heart Failure, July 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jchf.2018.03.019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tiana Nizamic, M. Hassan Murad, Larry A. Allen, Colleen K. McIlvennan, Sara E. Wordingham, Daniel D. Matlock, Shannon M. Dunlay

Abstract

This study sought to systematically review the available evidence of risks and benefits of ambulatory intravenous inotrope therapy in advanced heart failure (HF). Ambulatory inotrope infusions are sometimes offered to patients with advanced Stage D HF; however, an understanding of the relative risks and benefits is lacking. On August 7, 2016, we searched SCOPUS, Web of Science, Ovid EMBASE, and Ovid MEDLINE for studies of long-term use of intravenous inotropes in outpatients with advanced HF. Meta-analysis was performed using random effects models. A total of 66 studies (13 randomized controlled trials and 53 observational studies) met inclusion criteria. Most studies were small and at high risk for bias. Pooled rates of death (41 studies), all-cause hospitalization (15 studies), central line infection (13 studies), and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shocks (3 studies) of inotropes were 4.2, 22.2, 3.6, and 2.4 per 100 person-months follow-up, respectively. Improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was greater in patients taking inotropes than in controls (mean difference of 0.60 NYHA functional classes; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.98; p = 0.001; 5 trials). There was no significant difference in mortality risk in those taking inotropes compared with controls (pooled risk ratio: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.40 to 1.17; p = 0.16; 9 trials). Data were too limited to pool for other outcomes or to stratify by indication (i.e., bridge-to-transplant or palliative). High-quality evidence for the risks and benefits of ambulatory inotrope infusions in advanced HF is limited, particularly when used for palliation. Available data suggest that inotrope therapy improves NYHA functional class and does not impact survival.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 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 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 %
Researcher 3 38%
Other 1 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Other 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 50%
Unspecified 3 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 07 September 2018.
All research outputs
#386,486
of 12,259,388 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Heart Failure
#105
of 716 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,968
of 253,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Heart Failure
#7
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,259,388 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 716 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 253,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.