↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of image quality and radiation dose of prospectively ECG-triggered adaptive dual-source coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) with arrhythmia rejection algorithm in systole…

Overview of attention for article published in The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Assessment of image quality and radiation dose of prospectively ECG-triggered adaptive dual-source coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) with arrhythmia rejection algorithm in systole versus diastole: a retrospective cohort study
Published in
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, March 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10554-013-0208-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashley M. Lee, Jonathan Beaudoin, Leif-Christopher Engel, Manavjot S. Sidhu, Suhny Abbara, Thomas J. Brady, Udo Hoffmann, Brian B. Ghoshhajra

Abstract

In this study, we sought to evaluate the image quality and effective radiation dose of prospectively ECG-triggered adaptive systolic (PTA-systolic) dual-source CTA versus prospectively triggered adaptive diastolic (PTA-diastolic) dual-source CTA in patients of unselected heart rate and rhythm. This retrospective cohort study consisted of 41 PTA-systolic and 41 matched PTA-diastolic CTA patients whom underwent clinically indicated 128-slice dual source CTA between December 2010 to June 2012. Image quality and motion artifact score (both on a Likert scale 1-4 with 4 being the best), effective dose, and CTDIvol were compared. The effect of heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability [HRV] on image motion artifact score and CTDIvol was analyzed with Pearson's correlation coefficient. All 82 exams were considered diagnostic with 0 non-diagnostic segments. PTA-systolic CTA patients had a higher maximum HR, wider HRV, were less likely to be in sinus rhythm, and received less beta-blocker vs. PTA-diastolic CTA patients. No difference in effective dose was observed (PTA-systolic vs. PTA-diastolic CTA: 2.9 vs. 2.2 mSv, p = 0.26). Image quality score (3.3 vs. 3.5, p < 0.05) and motion artifact score (3.5 vs. 3.8, p < 0.05) were lower in PTA-systolic CTAs than in PTA-diastolic CTAs. For PTA-systolic CTAs, an increase in HR was not associated with a negative impact on motion artifact score nor CTDIvol. For PTA-diastolic CTA, an increase in HR was associated with increased motion artifacts and CTDIvol. HRV demonstrated no correlation with motion artifact and CTDIvol for both PTA-systolic and PTA-diastolic CTAs. In conclusion, both PTA-diastolic CTA and PTA-systolic CTA yielded diagnostic examinations at unselected heart rates and rhythms with similar effective radiation, but PTA-systolic CTA resulted in more consistent radiation exposure and image quality across a wide range of rates and rhythms.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 18%
Researcher 3 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Professor 2 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 12%
Other 3 18%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 65%
Psychology 2 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 2 12%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 March 2014.
All research outputs
#17,236,404
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#908
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,566
of 210,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#11
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,012 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. 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 210,024 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 69% of its contemporaries.