↓ Skip to main content

Foetal blood flow measured using phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance – preliminary data comparing 1.5 T with 3.0 T

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Foetal blood flow measured using phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance – preliminary data comparing 1.5 T with 3.0 T
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12968-015-0132-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beverly Tsai-Goodman, Meng Yuan Zhu, Mashael Al-Rujaib, Mike Seed, Christopher K Macgowan

Abstract

Phase contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (PC CMR) has emerged as a clinical tool for blood flow quantification but its use in the foetus has been hampered by the need for gating with the foetal heart beat. The previously described metric optimized gating (MOG) technique has been successfully used to measure foetal blood flow in late gestation foetuses on a 1.5 T CMR magnet. However, there is increasing interest in performing foetal cardiac imaging using 3.0 T CMR. We describe our pilot investigation of foetal blood flow measured using 3.0 T CMR. Foetal blood flows were quantified in 5 subjects at late gestational age (35-38 weeks). Three were normal pregnancies and two were pregnancies with ventricular size discrepancy. Data were obtained at 1.5 T and 3.0 T using a previously described PC CMR protocol. After reconstruction using MOG, blood flow was quantified independently by two observers. Intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of flow measurements at the two field strengths was assessed by Pearson correlation coefficient (R(2)), linear regression and Bland Altman analysis. PC CMR flow measurements were obtained in 36 of 40 target vessels. Strong intra-observer agreement was obtained between measurements at each field strength (R(2) = 0.78, slope = 0.83 ± 0.11), with a mean bias of -1 ml/min/kg and 95% confidence limits of ±71 ml/min/kg. Inter-observer agreement was similarly high for measurements at both 1.5 T (R(2) = 0.86, slope = 0.95 ± 0.13, bias = 6 ± 52 ml/min/kg) and 3.0 T (R(2) = 0.88, slope = 0.94 ± 0.13, bias = 4 ± 47 ml/min/kg). Across all PC CMR measurements, SNR per pixel was expectedly higher at 3.0 T relative to 1.5 T (165 ± 50%). The relative differences in flow measurements between observers were low (range: 4-16%) except for pulmonary blood flow which showed much higher variability at 1.5 T (34%) versus that at 3.0 T (11%). This was attributed to the poorly visualized, small pulmonary vessels at 1.5 T, which made delineation inconsistent between observers. This is the first pilot study to measure foetal blood flow using PC CMR at 3.0 T. The flow data obtained were in good correlation with those measured at 1.5 T, both within and between observers. With increased SNR at 3.0 T, smaller pulmonary vessels were better visualized which improved inter-observer agreement of associated flows.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 23%
Researcher 9 20%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Other 5 11%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 52%
Engineering 8 18%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Unknown 11 25%
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 12 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,820,112
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#895
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,846
of 280,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#16
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 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 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 280,520 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 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.