To determine whether quantitative wall motion assessment by CMR myocardial feature tracking (CMR-FT) would reduce the impact of observer experience as compared to visual analysis in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM).
15 consecutive patients with ICM referred for assessment of hibernating myocardium were studied at 3 Tesla using SSFP cine images at rest and during low dose dobutamine stress (5 and 10 μg/kg/min of dobutamine). Conventional visual, qualitative analysis was performed independently and blinded by an experienced and an inexperienced reader, followed by post-processing of the same images by CMR-FT to quantify subendocardial and subepicardial circumferential (Eccendo and Eccepi) and radial (Err) strain. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) were assessed for each strain parameter and operator to detect the presence of inotropic reserve as visually defined by the experienced observer.
141 segments with wall motion abnormalities at rest were eligible for the analysis. Visual scoring of wall motion at rest and during dobutamine was significantly different between the experienced and the inexperienced observer (p<0.001). All strain values (Eccendo, Eccepi and Err) derived during dobutamine stress (5 and 10 μg/kg/min) showed similar diagnostic accuracy for the detection of contractile reserve for both operators with no differences in ROC (p>0.05). Eccendo was the most accurate (AUC of 0.76, 10 μg/kg/min of dobutamine) parameter. Diagnostic accuracy was worse for resting strain with differences between operators for Eccendo and Eccepi (p<0.05) but not Err (p>0.05).
Whilst visual analysis remains highly dependent on operator experience, quantitative CMR-FT analysis of myocardial wall mechanics during DS-CMR provides diagnostic accuracy for the detection of inotropic reserve regardless of operator experience and hence may improve diagnostic robustness of low-dose DS-CMR in clinical practice.
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 26 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,273,512
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#173,751
of 194,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,040
of 264,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#5,804
of 6,782 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 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 194,654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 264,831 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 6,782 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.
