↓ Skip to main content

American College of Cardiology

Article Metrics

Randomized Evaluation of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Dopamine

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#41 of 734)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
137 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
Title
Randomized Evaluation of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Dopamine
Published in
JACC: Heart Failure, October 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jchf.2018.04.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kavita Sharma, Joban Vaishnav, Rohan Kalathiya, Jiun-Ruey Hu, John Miller, Nishant Shah, Terence Hill, Michelle Sharp, Allison Tsao, Kevin M. Alexander, Richa Gupta, Kristina Montemayor, Lara Kovell, Jessica E. Chasler, Yizhen J. Lee, Derek M. Fine, David A. Kass, Robert G. Weiss, David R. Thiemann, Chiadi E. Ndumele, Steven P. Schulman, Stuart D. Russell

Abstract

This study sought to compare a continuous infusion diuretic strategy versus an intermittent bolus diuretic strategy, with the addition of low-dose dopamine (3 μg/kg/min) in the treatment of hospitalized patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). HFpEF patients are susceptible to development of worsening renal function (WRF) when hospitalized with acute heart failure; however, inpatient treatment strategies to achieve safe and effective diuresis in HFpEF patients have not been studied to date. In a prospective, randomized, clinical trial, 90 HFpEF patients hospitalized with acute heart failure were randomized within 24 h of admission to 1 of 4 treatments: 1) intravenous bolus furosemide administered every 12 h; 2) continuous infusion furosemide; 3) intermittent bolus furosemide with low-dose dopamine; and 4) continuous infusion furosemide with low-dose dopamine. The primary endpoint was percent change in creatinine from baseline to 72 h. Linear and logistic regression analyses with tests for interactions between diuretic and dopamine strategies were performed. Compared to intermittent bolus strategy, the continuous infusion strategy was associated with higher percent increase in creatinine (continuous infusion: 16.01%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.58% to 23.45% vs. intermittent bolus: 4.62%; 95% CI: -1.15% to 10.39%; p = 0.02). Low-dose dopamine had no significant effect on percent change in creatinine (low-dose dopamine: 12.79%; 95% CI: 5.66% to 19.92%, vs. no-dopamine: 8.03%; 95% CI: 1.44% to 14.62%; p = 0.33). Continuous infusion was also associated with greater risk of WRF than intermittent bolus (odds ratio [OR]: 4.32; 95% CI: 1.26 to 14.74; p = 0.02); no differences in WRF risk were seen with low-dose dopamine. No significant interaction was seen between diuretic strategy and low-dose dopamine (p > 0.10). In HFpEF patients hospitalized with acute heart failure, low-dose dopamine had no significant impact on renal function, and a continuous infusion diuretic strategy was associated with renal impairment. (Diuretics and Dopamine in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction [ROPA-DOP]; NCT01901809).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 137 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 27%
Student > Postgraduate 2 18%
Lecturer 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 9%
Other 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 45%
Unspecified 3 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Social Sciences 1 9%
Psychology 1 9%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. 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 10 January 2019.
All research outputs
#181,133
of 12,379,581 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Heart Failure
#41
of 734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,444
of 267,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Heart Failure
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,379,581 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 267,222 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.