| Title |
Assessment of myocardial delayed enhancement with cardiac computed tomography in cardiomyopathies: a prospective comparison with delayed enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10554-016-1024-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hye-Jeong Lee, Dong Jin Im, Jong-Chan Youn, Suyon Chang, Young Joo Suh, Yoo Jin Hong, Young Jin Kim, Jin Hur, Byoung Wook Choi |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the feasibility of cardiac CT for the evaluation of myocardial delayed enhancement (MDE) in the assessment of patients with cardiomyopathy, compared to cardiac MRI. A total of 37 patients (mean age 54.9 ± 15.7 years, 24 men) who underwent cardiac MRI to evaluate cardiomyopathy were enrolled. Dual-energy ECG-gated cardiac CT was acquired 12 min after contrast injection. Two observers evaluated cardiac MRI and cardiac CT at different kV settings (100, 120 and 140 kV) independently for MDE pattern-classification (patchy, transmural, subendocardial, epicardial and mesocardial), differentiation between ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and MDE quantification (percentage MDE). Kappa statics and the intraclass correlation coefficient were used for statistical analysis. Among different kV settings, 100-kV CT showed excellent agreements compared to cardiac MRI for MDE detection (κ = 0.886 and 0.873, respectively), MDE pattern-classification (κ = 0.888 and 0.881, respectively) and differentiation between ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (κ = 1.000 and 0.893, respectively) for both Observer 1 and Observer 2. The Bland-Altman plot between MRI and 100-kV CT for the percentage MDE showed a very small bias (-0.15%) with 95% limits of agreement of -7.02 and 6.72. Cardiac CT using 100 kV might be an alternative method to cardiac MRI in the assessment of cardiomyopathy, particularly in patients with contraindications to cardiac MRI. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Unknown | 5 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 50% |
| Engineering | 3 | 11% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 32% |
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 24 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#1,292
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,968
of 415,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#16
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 415,413 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.