| Title |
Differentiation of hemopericardium due to ruptured myocardial infarction or aortic dissection on unenhanced postmortem computed tomography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12024-017-9854-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Garyfalia Ampanozi, Patricia M. Flach, Thomas D. Ruder, Laura Filograna, Wolf Schweitzer, Michael J. Thali, Lars C. Ebert |
| Abstract |
The aim of the study was to evaluate unenhanced postmortem computed tomography (PMCT) in cases of non-traumatic hemopericardium by establishing the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of diagnostic criteria for the differentiation between aortic dissection and myocardial wall rupture due to infarction. Twenty six cases were identified as suitable for evaluation, of which ruptured aortic dissection could be identified as the underlying cause of hemopericardium in 50% of the cases, and myocardial wall rupture also in 50% of the cases. All cases underwent a PMCT and 24 of the cases also underwent one or more additional examinations: a subsequent autopsy, or a postmortem magnetic resonance (PMMR), or a PMCT angiography (PMCTA), or combinations of the above. Two radiologists evaluated the PMCT images and classified each case as "aortic dissection", "myocardial wall rupture" or "undetermined". Quantification of the pericardial blood was carried out using segmentation techniques. 17 of 26 cases were correctly identified, either as aortic dissections or myocardial ruptures, by both readers. 7 of 13 myocardial wall ruptures were identified by both readers, whereas both readers identified correctly 10 of 13 aortic dissection cases. Taking into account the responses of both readers, specificity was 100% for both causes of hemopericardium and sensitivity as well as accuracy was higher for aortic dissections than myocardial wall ruptures (72.7% and 87.5% vs 53.8% and 75% respectively). Pericardial blood volumes were constantly higher in the aortic dissection group, but a statistical significance of these differences could not be proven, since the small count of cases did not allow for statistical tests. This study showed that diagnostic criteria for the differentiation between ruptured aortic dissection and myocardial wall rupture due to infarction are highly specific and accurate. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 2 | 10% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 25% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 40% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 40% |
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 28 March 2017.
All research outputs
#16,454,538
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#407
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,469
of 312,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#9
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. 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 312,018 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.