| Title |
Coexistence of congenital left ventricular aneurysm and prominent left ventricular trabeculation in a patient with LDB3 mutation: a case report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Case Reports, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13256-017-1405-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shengshuai Shan, Xiaoxiao He, Lin He, Min Wang, Chengyun Liu |
| Abstract |
The coexistence of congenital left ventricular aneurysm and abnormal cardiac trabeculation with gene mutation has not been reported previously. Here, we report a case of coexisting congenital left ventricular aneurysm and prominent left ventricular trabeculation in a patient with LIM domain binding 3 gene mutation. A 30-year-old Asian man showed paroxysmal sinus tachycardia and Q waves in an electrocardiogram health check. There were no specific findings in physical examinations and serological tests. A coronary-computed tomography angiography check showed normal coronary artery and no coronary stenosis. Both left ventricle contrast echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance showed rare patterns of a combination of an apical aneurysm-like out-pouching structure with a wide connection to the left ventricle and prominent left ventricular trabecular meshwork. High-throughput sequencing examinations showed a novel mutation in the LDB3 gene (c.C793>T; p.Arg265Cys). Our finding indicates that the phenotypic expression of two heart conditions, congenital left ventricular aneurysm and prominent left ventricular trabeculation, although rare, can occur simultaneously with LDB3 gene mutation. Congenital left ventricular aneurysm and prominent left ventricular trabeculation may share the same genetic background. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 33% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 33% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 50% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
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 11 July 2018.
All research outputs
#20,525,274
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#3,527
of 3,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,891
of 319,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#42
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,963 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 319,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.