↓ Skip to main content

Qualitative angiographic and quantitative myocardial perfusion assessment using fluorescent cardiac imaging during graded coronary artery bypass stenosis

Overview of attention for article published in The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
Qualitative angiographic and quantitative myocardial perfusion assessment using fluorescent cardiac imaging during graded coronary artery bypass stenosis
Published in
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10554-017-1212-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Detter, Detlef Russ, Jan Felix Kersten, Hermann Reichenspurner, Sabine Wipper

Abstract

Intraoperative graft assessment in coronary artery bypass (CAB) grafting is important to avoid early graft failure. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of fluorescent cardiac imaging (FCI) for intraoperative qualitative angiographic and quantitative myocardial perfusion assessment during graded CAB stenosis compared to coronary angiography (CA). After CAB grafting to the left anterior descending coronary artery, graded distal bypass stenoses were created in ten pigs by 25, 50, 75, and 100% flow reduction assessed by transit-time flow measurement (TTFM). Visual angiographic assessment was performed by FCI and CA during baseline and graded bypass stenoses. Altered myocardial perfusion was assessed by quantitative intraoperative fluorescence intensity (QIFI) derived from FCI and correlated to TTFM. Patent bypass grafts and graft occlusion were visualized successfully by FCI and CA, while discrimination between various graded bypass stenosis was possible in 73.3%. The degree of CAB stenosis was overestimated in 16.7% and underestimated in 10.0% by FCI compared to CA. Graded CAB stenosis reduced regional myocardial perfusion quantified by decreased QIFI value (p < 0.001). Mean QIFI value was 76.8 (95% CI 67.2-86.3) during baseline, 55.6 (95% CI 45.3-65.9) during 25% flow-reduction, 30.6 (95% CI 22.3-39.0) during 50% flow-reduction, 20.3 (95% CI 15.4-25.3) during 75% flow-reduction, and 0 during CAB occlusion (p < 0.001) with a significant correlation to TTFM (r = 0.955; p < 0.0001). Solely visual assessment of CAB quality using FCI is limited as compared to CA. Additional QIFI assessment identified graded CAB stenosis and occlusion with a significant correlation to TTFM.

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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 30%
Unspecified 2 20%
Professor 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Unknown 1 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 40%
Unspecified 2 20%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 10%
Computer Science 1 10%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 10%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 July 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#1,116
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,532
of 324,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#29
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 324,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.