| Title |
Comparison of the prognostic value of myocardial perfusion imaging using a CZT-SPECT camera with a conventional anger camera
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-016-0618-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ronaldo Lima, Thais Peclat, Thalita Soares, Caio Ferreira, Ana Carolina Souza, Gabriel Camargo |
| Abstract |
Recent studies have shown that myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in cadmium-zinc-telluride (CZT) cameras allow faster exams with less radiation dose but there are little data comparing its prognosis information with that of dedicated cardiac Na-I SPECT cameras OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the prognostic value of MPI using an ultrafast protocol with low radiation dose in a CZT-SPECT and a traditional one. Group 1 was submitted to a two-day MIBI protocol in a conventional camera, and group 2 was submitted to a 1-day MIBI protocol in CZT camera. MPI were classified as normal or abnormal, and perfusion scores were calculated. Propensity score matching methods were performed RESULTS: 3554 patients were followed during 33±8 months. Groups 1 and 2 had similar distribution of age, gender, body mass index, risk factors, previous revascularization, and use of pharmacological stress. Group 1 had more abnormal scans, higher scores than group 2. Annualized hard events rate was higher in group 1 with normal scans but frequency of revascularization was similar to normal group 2. Patients with abnormal scans had similar event rates in both groups CONCLUSION: New protocol of MPI in CZT-SPECT showed similar prognostic results to those obtained in dedicated cardiac Na-I SPECT camera, with lower prevalence of hard events in patients with normal scan. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 50% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,042
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,176
of 371,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#23
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 371,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.