| Title |
Myocardial delayed-enhancement CT: initial experience in children and young adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pediatric Radiology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00247-017-3889-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hyun Woo Goo |
| Abstract |
Clinical utility of myocardial delayed enhancement CT has not been reported in children and young adults. To describe initial experience of myocardial delayed enhancement CT regarding image quality, radiation dose and identification of myocardial lesions in children and young adults. Between August 2013 and November 2016, 29 consecutive children and young adults (median age 16 months) with suspected coronary artery or myocardial abnormality underwent arterial- and delayed-phase cardiac CT at our institution. We measured CT densities in normal myocardium, left ventricular cavity, and arterial and delayed hypo-enhancing and delayed hyperenhancing myocardial lesions. We then compared the extent of delayed hyperenhancing lesions with delayed-enhancement MRI or thallium single-photon emission CT. Normal myocardium and left ventricular cavity showed significantly higher CT numbers on arterial-phase CT than on delayed-phase CT (t-test, P<0.0001). Contrast-to-noise ratios of the arterial and delayed hypo-enhancing and delayed hyperenhancing lesions on CT were 26.7, 17.6 and 18.7, respectively. Delayed-phase CT findings were equivalent to those of delayed-enhancement MRI in all cases (7/7) and to those of thallium single-photon emission CT in 70% (7/10). Myocardial delayed-enhancement CT can be added to evaluate myocardial lesions in select children and young adults with suspected coronary artery or myocardial abnormality. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 25% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 13% |
| Librarian | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 13% |
| Engineering | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
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 May 2017.
All research outputs
#14,936,169
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#1,270
of 2,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,728
of 313,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#40
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,092 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 313,690 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.