| Title |
Usefulness of abdominal belt for restricting respiratory cardiac motion and improving image quality in myocardial perfusion PET
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-016-0623-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yasutaka Ichikawa, Yoya Tomita, Masaki Ishida, Shigeki Kobayashi, Kan Takeda, Hajime Sakuma |
| Abstract |
The current study evaluated the usefulness of a belt technique for restricting respiratory motion of the heart and for improving image quality of (13)N-ammonia myocardial PET/CT, and it assessed the tolerability of the belt technique in the clinical setting. Myocardial (13)N-ammonia PET/CT scanning was performed in 8 volunteers on Discovery PET/CT 690 with an optical respiratory motion tracking system. Emission scans were performed with and without an abdominal belt. The amplitude of left ventricular (LV) respiratory motion was measured on respiratory-gated PET images. The degree of erroneous decreases in regional myocardial uptake was visually assessed on ungated PET images using a 5-point scale (0 = normal, 1/2/3 = mild/moderate/severe decrease, 4 = defect). The tolerability of the belt technique was evaluated in 53 patients. All subjects tolerated the belt procedure. The amplitude of the LV respiratory motion decreased significantly with the belt (8.1 ± 7.1 vs 12.1 ± 6.1 mm, P = .0078). The belt significantly improved the image quality scores in the anterior (0.29 ± 0.81 vs 0.71 ± 1.04, P = .015) and inferior (0.33 ± 0.92 vs 1.04 ± 1.04, P < .0001) wall. No adverse events related to the belt technique were observed. The belt technique restricts LV respiratory motion and improves the image quality of myocardial PET/CT, and it is well tolerated by patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 9% |
| Researcher | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 27% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 9% |
| Design | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,915,133
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#936
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,467
of 354,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#17
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 354,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.