| Title |
Impact of imaging protocol on left ventricular ejection fraction using gated-SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12350-016-0483-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C Marcassa, R Giubbini, W Acampa, C Cittanti, O Djepaxhija, A Gimelli, A Kokomani, G Medolago, E Milan, R Sciagrà |
| Abstract |
There are limited data on the impact of the imaging protocol (single-day stress-rest, SD, vs. dual-day, DD) on the change in left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) (post-stress-rest) in relation to ischemia and on outcome. Using propensity score matching procedure, 490 of 1121 patients with known CAD, undergoing a SD or a DD in a multicenter study, were evaluated. Stress and rest gated-SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging was used to quantify LV perfusion, EF, and volumes. Outcome was assessed at an average follow-up time of 3.2 years. Post-stress LVEF in SD and DD were comparable across all degrees of ischemia. The change in LVEF in patients with severe ischemia was, however, higher in the DD protocol, independent of the extent of CAD. At follow-up, 240 patients (49.0%) required coronary revascularization (CR) and 52 patients (10.6%) had hard events. The ischemic burden was independently associated with CR and hard-events; the post-stress LVEF was associated with CR but the change in EF was not predictive of either CR or hard events. In patients with severe ischemia, underestimation of post-stress myocardial stunning could be observed with the SD protocol. Post-stress LVEF and the extent ischemia, but not the change in EF, are predictive of CR and hard events. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 13% |
| Researcher | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 13% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 50% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
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 09 April 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,839
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,705
of 315,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#38
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 315,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.