↓ Skip to main content

Low-dose dual-isotope procedure planed for myocardial perfusion CZT-SPECT and assessed through a head-to-head comparison with a conventional single-isotope protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Low-dose dual-isotope procedure planed for myocardial perfusion CZT-SPECT and assessed through a head-to-head comparison with a conventional single-isotope protocol
Published in
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12350-017-0914-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laetitia Imbert, Véronique Roch, Charles Merlin, Wassila Djaballah, Florent Cachin, Mathieu Perrin, Marine Claudin, Antoine Verger, Henri Boutley, Gilles Karcher, Pierre-Yves Marie

Abstract

This study aimed at assessing an original low-dose dual-isotope procedure in which the abnormal stress Tc-99m Sestamibi SPECT is followed by rest Tl-201 SPECT, along with a head-to-head comparison with a single-isotope procedure. One hundred two patients, referred for a low-dose stress-SPECT with Sestamibi (123 ± 20 MBq) on a CZT camera and for whom a rest Sestamibi SPECT was warranted, had an additional Tl-201 rest-SPECT (52 ± 5 MBq) between stress and rest Sestamibi SPECT recordings. Tl-201 images were processed for spill-over and scatter corrections, and uptake differences with stress Sestamibi SPECT were analyzed: (1) for rest acquisitions from Tl-201 (dual-isotope procedure) and from Sestamibi (single-isotope procedure) and (2) in segments for which a diagnosis of ischemia, infarct, or normal perfusion was achieved. Mean effective dose was 8.3 mSv for dual-isotope but would decrease to 5.7 mSv for an expected rate of 37% of patients for whom rest-SPECT is not warranted. After a further background correction of Tl-201 images, the rest-stress difference in myocardial uptake was equivalent between dual- and single-procedures for identifying ischemic segments (respective areas-under-curves: 0.83 ± 0.03 and 0.81 ± 0.03). This original dual-isotope procedure provides acceptable radiation doses and consistent results, as compared with conventional single-isotope.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Other 1 13%
Lecturer 1 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 13%
Researcher 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 13%
Engineering 1 13%
Unknown 3 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 May 2017.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#1,485
of 2,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,608
of 325,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nuclear Cardiology
#31
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 325,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.