↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility of high-resolution quantitative perfusion analysis in patients with heart failure

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Feasibility of high-resolution quantitative perfusion analysis in patients with heart failure
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12968-015-0124-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva Sammut, Niloufar Zarinabad, Roman Wesolowski, Geraint Morton, Zhong Chen, Manav Sohal, Gerry Carr-White, Reza Razavi, Amedeo Chiribiri

Abstract

Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is playing an expanding role in the assessment of patients with heart failure (HF). The assessment of myocardial perfusion status in HF can be challenging due to left ventricular (LV) remodelling and wall thinning, coexistent scar and respiratory artefacts. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of quantitative CMR myocardial perfusion analysis in patients with HF. A group of 58 patients with heart failure (HF; left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF ≤ 50%) and 33 patients with normal LVEF (LVEF >50%), referred for suspected coronary artery disease, were studied. All subjects underwent quantitative first-pass stress perfusion imaging using adenosine according to standard acquisition protocols. The feasibility of quantitative perfusion analysis was then assessed using high-resolution, 3 T kt perfusion and voxel-wise Fermi deconvolution. 30/58 (52%) subjects in the HF group had underlying ischaemic aetiology. Perfusion abnormalities were seen amongst patients with ischaemic HF and patients with normal LV function. No regional perfusion defect was observed in the non-ischaemic HF group. Good agreement was found between visual and quantitative analysis across all groups. Absolute stress perfusion rate, myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) and endocardial-epicardial MPR ratio identified areas with abnormal perfusion in the ischaemic HF group (p = 0.02; p = 0.04; p = 0.02, respectively). In the Normal LV group, MPR and endocardial-epicardial MPR ratio were able to distinguish between normal and abnormal segments (p = 0.04; p = 0.02 respectively). No significant differences of absolute stress perfusion rate or MPR were observed comparing visually normal segments amongst groups. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of high-resolution voxel-wise perfusion assessment in patients with HF.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 6%
United States 1 3%
Unknown 32 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 20%
Other 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 40%
Engineering 4 11%
Physics and Astronomy 3 9%
Energy 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 12 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 13 April 2016.
All research outputs
#15,327,026
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#948
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,761
of 369,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#17
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 369,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 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 60% of its contemporaries.