| Title |
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging of aorto-iliac and ilio-femoral vascular calcifications using proton density-weighted in-phase stack of stars
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12968-018-0479-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ali Serhal, Ioannis Koktzoglou, Pascale Aouad, James C. Carr, Shivraman Giri, Omar Morcos, Robert R. Edelman |
| Abstract |
Comparing cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) angiography with computed tomography angiography (CTA), a major deficiency has been its inability to reliably image peripheral vascular calcifications that may impact the choice of interventional strategy and influence patient prognosis. Recently, MRI using a proton density-weighted, in-phase stack of stars (PDIP-SOS) technique has proved capable of detecting these calcifications. The goal of the present study was two-fold: (1) to determine whether magnetic field strength impacts the apparent size and conspicuity of ilio-femoral arterial calcifications; and (2) to determine whether the technique can be accurately applied to image aorto-iliac arterial calcifications. Two patient cohorts were studied. For the first cohort, ilio-femoral arterial calcifications were imaged at 1.5 Tesla in 20 patients and at 3 Tesla in 12 patients. For the second cohort, aorto-iliac arterial calcifications were imaged in 10 patients at 3 Tesla and one patient at 1.5 Tesla. Qualitative image analysis as well as quantitative analysis using a semi-automated technique were performed using CTA as the reference standard. Qualitatively, most PDIP-SOS CMR images showed good-to-excellent confidence to detect vascular calcifications, with good-to-excellent inter-reader agreement (κ = 0.67 for ilio-femoral region, P < 0.001; κ = 0.80 for aorto-iliac region, P < 0.01). There was an overall excellent correlation (r = 0.98, P < 0.001) and agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97, P < 0.001) between PDIP-SOS CMR and CTA measures of calcification volume in both regions, with no overt difference in performance at 1.5 Tesla vs. 3 Tesla for ilio-femoral calcifications. CMR lesion volumes were slightly lower than those measured for CTA. Using PDIP-SOS CMR, aorto-iliac and ilio-femoral calcifications could be simultaneously evaluated at 3 Tesla in less than six minutes with excellent correlation and agreement to CTA. Our results suggest that PDIP-SOS CMR provides a reliable alternative to CT for pre-interventional evaluation of peripheral vascular calcium burden. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 4 | 36% |
| Mexico | 1 | 9% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 27% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 29 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 38% |
| Engineering | 4 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,914,995
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#316
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,626
of 341,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#15
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
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 341,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.