| Title |
Sequential SPECT/CT imaging for detection of coronary artery disease in a large cohort: evaluation of the need for additional imaging and radiation exposure
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-015-0243-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elsemiek M Engbers, Jorik R Timmer, Jan Paul Ottervanger, Mohamed Mouden, Ad H J Oostdijk, Siert Knollema, Pieter L Jager |
| Abstract |
Performing both single photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) in patients suspected for coronary artery disease (CAD) leads to increased radiation exposure. We evaluated the need for additional imaging and following implications for radiation exposure of a sequential SPECT/computed tomography (CT) algorithm. 5018 consecutive patients without history of CAD were referred for stress-first SPECT and coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring. If stress SPECT was abnormal, additional rest SPECT and, if feasible, CCTA were acquired. Stress SPECT was normal in 2617 patients (52%). CCTA was not performed in 1289 of the 2401 patients referred for additional imaging (54%), mainly because of severe CAC (47%) or fast/irregular heart rate (22%). 642 patients with abnormal SPECT underwent CCTA, which excluded significant CAD in 378 patients (59%). Mean radiation dose was 4.5 ± 0.3 mSv for stress-only imaging and 13.2 ± 3.3 mSv for additional imaging (P < 0.001). Half of the patients do not require additional imaging in our sequential SPECT/CT algorithm, which is accompanied with low radiation exposure. CCTA cannot be performed in half of the patients who undergo additional imaging because of (relative) contra-indications. CCTA is able to correct for false-positive SPECT findings in our algorithm. |
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 States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 48% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 5 | 22% |
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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,485
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,734
of 285,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#22
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 2,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 285,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.