| Title |
Fast myocardial perfusion imaging with 99mTc in challenging patients using conventional SPECT cameras
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-016-0431-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Athanasios Katsikis, Athanasios Theodorakos, Anna Kouzoumi, Elpida Kitziri, Evangelos Georgiou, Maria Koutelou |
| Abstract |
We attempted to validate the performance of a fast myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) protocol in diagnostically challenging patients. 78 patients with ΒΜΙ > 24.9, LVH or three vessels disease underwent two sequential gated-MPI studies. The first at 15 (Early Imaging, EI) and the second at 45 (Late Imaging, LI) minutes post (99m)Tc-injection, at both stress and rest. Counts over heart (H), liver (Liv) and subdiaphragmatic space (Sub) and image quality, and myocardial perfusion and function parameters were compared between the two protocols. Coronary angiography was performed within 2 months from MPI, and ROC analysis was used to compare the diagnostic accuracy for the detection of ≥50% diameter luminal stenosis. Quality was optimal-good in 93% of EI and 98% of LI studies (P = .12), H/Liv and stress H/Sub ratios were similar, but rest H/Sub ratio was lower in EI (P = .009). SSS [10 (0 to 46) vs 9 (0 to 36), P = .006] and SDS [3 (0 to 35) vs 2 (0 to 34), P = .02] were higher in EI protocol. LVEF, motion and thickening scores did not differ between the two protocols. A highly significant (P < .001) linear relationship with clinically negligible mean differences in Bland-Altman analysis was observed for all perfusion and function-related data. Sensitivity (EI 81%, LI 80%) and specificity (65% for both) did not differ (P = .23) between the two protocols. The fast protocol is technically feasible and diagnostically accurate compared to the established protocol in diagnostically challenging patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 33% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 17% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 8% |
| Researcher | 1 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 August 2018.
All research outputs
#14,600,553
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#884
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,675
of 314,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#11
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 314,534 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.