| Title |
Qualitative grading of aortic regurgitation: a pilot study comparing CMR 4D flow and echocardiography
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10554-015-0779-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Raluca G. Chelu, Annemien E. van den Bosch, Matthijs van Kranenburg, Albert Hsiao, Allard T. van den Hoven, Mohamed Ouhlous, Ricardo P. J. Budde, Kirsten M. Beniest, Laurens E. Swart, Adriaan Coenen, Marisa M. Lubbers, Piotr A. Wielopolski, Shreyas S. Vasanawala, Jolien W. Roos-Hesselink, Koen Nieman |
| Abstract |
Over the past 10 years there has been intense research in the development of volumetric visualization of intracardiac flow by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). This volumetric time resolved technique called CMR 4D flow imaging has several advantages over standard CMR. It offers anatomical, functional and flow information in a single free-breathing, ten-minute acquisition. However, the data obtained is large and its processing requires dedicated software. We evaluated a cloud-based application package that combines volumetric data correction and visualization of CMR 4D flow data, and assessed its accuracy for the detection and grading of aortic valve regurgitation using transthoracic echocardiography as reference. Between June 2014 and January 2015, patients planned for clinical CMR were consecutively approached to undergo the supplementary CMR 4D flow acquisition. Fifty four patients (median age 39 years, 32 males) were included. Detection and grading of the aortic valve regurgitation using CMR 4D flow imaging were evaluated against transthoracic echocardiography. The agreement between 4D flow CMR and transthoracic echocardiography for grading of aortic valve regurgitation was good (κ = 0.73). To identify relevant, more than mild aortic valve regurgitation, CMR 4D flow imaging had a sensitivity of 100 % and specificity of 98 %. Aortic regurgitation can be well visualized, in a similar manner as transthoracic echocardiography, when using CMR 4D flow imaging. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 14% |
| Researcher | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 44% |
| Engineering | 10 | 15% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 22 | 33% |
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 29 October 2015.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#1,116
of 2,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,017
of 294,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging
#15
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 294,731 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 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.