| Title |
Real-Time Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guidance Improves the Diagnostic Yield of Endomyocardial Biopsy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC: Basic to Translational Science, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacbts.2016.05.007 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Toby Rogers, Kanishka Ratnayaka, Parag Karmarkar, Adrienne E. Campbell-Washburn, William H. Schenke, Jonathan R. Mazal, Ozgur Kocaturk, Anthony Z. Faranesh, Robert J. Lederman |
| Abstract |
Diagnostic yield of endomyocardial biopsy is low, particularly in disease that affects the myocardium in a non-uniform distribution. We hypothesized that real-time MRI guidance could improve the yield through targeted biopsy of focal myocardial pathology. An animal model of focal myocardial pathology was created by infusing 3mL of fluorescent microspheres (NuFlow Hydrocoat, 15μm diameter, 5 million spheres/mL) followed by 2mL of 100% ethanol to a branch coronary artery. Animals were survived for minimum 14days, before undergoing MRI guided endomyocardial biopsy using a custom 6.5Fr active visualization MRI-conditional bioptome and X-ray guided biopsy using a commercial bioptome. Specimens were analyzed using a dissecting microscope under ultraviolet light to determine the proportion of 'on-target' specimens containing fluorescent microspheres. A total of 77 specimens were obtained using real-time MRI guidance and 87 using X-ray guidance, in five animals. Specimens obtained with the MRI-conditional bioptome were smaller compared with the commercial X-ray bioptome. Real-time MRI guidance significantly increased the diagnostic yield of endomyocardial biopsy (82% vs. 56% on-target biopsy specimens with real-time MRI vs. X-ray guidance, p<0.01). Endomyocardial biopsy performed using real-time MRI guidance is feasible and significantly improves the diagnostic yield compared with X-ray fluoroscopy guidance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 18% |
| United States | 3 | 14% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 9% |
| Mexico | 2 | 9% |
| Greece | 1 | 5% |
| Peru | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 68% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 13 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 9 | 28% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 25% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 08 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,076,319
of 25,692,343 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Basic to Translational Science
#254
of 819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,030
of 350,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Basic to Translational Science
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,692,343 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 350,524 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.