↓ Skip to main content

Splenic T1-mapping: a novel quantitative method for assessing adenosine stress adequacy for cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Splenic T1-mapping: a novel quantitative method for assessing adenosine stress adequacy for cardiovascular magnetic resonance
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12968-016-0318-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Liu, Rohan S. Wijesurendra, Rina Ariga, Masliza Mahmod, Eylem Levelt, Andreas Greiser, Mario Petrou, George Krasopoulos, John C. Forfar, Rajesh K. Kharbanda, Keith M. Channon, Stefan Neubauer, Stefan K. Piechnik, Vanessa M. Ferreira

Abstract

Perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) performed with inadequate adenosine stress leads to false-negative results and suboptimal clinical management. The recently proposed marker of adequate stress, the "splenic switch-off" sign, detects splenic blood flow attenuation during stress perfusion (spleen appears dark), but can only be assessed after gadolinium first-pass, when it is too late to optimize the stress response. Reduction in splenic blood volume during adenosine stress is expected to shorten native splenic T1, which may predict splenic switch-off without the need for gadolinium. Two-hundred and twelve subjects underwent adenosine stress CMR: 1.5 T (n = 104; 75 patients, 29 healthy controls); 3 T (n = 108; 86 patients, 22 healthy controls). Native T1spleen was assessed using heart-rate-independent ShMOLLI prototype sequence at rest and during adenosine stress (140 μg/kg/min, 4 min, IV) in 3 short-axis slices (basal, mid-ventricular, apical). This was compared with changes in peak splenic perfusion signal intensity (ΔSIspleen) and the "splenic switch-off" sign on conventional stress/rest gadolinium perfusion imaging. T1spleen values were obtained blinded to perfusion ΔSIspleen, both were derived using regions of interest carefully placed to avoid artefacts and partial-volume effects. Normal resting splenic T1 values were 1102 ± 66 ms (1.5 T) and 1352 ± 114 ms (3 T), slightly higher than in patients (1083 ± 59 ms, p = 0.04; 1295 ± 105 ms, p = 0.01, respectively). T1spleen decreased significantly during adenosine stress (mean ΔT1spleen ~ -40 ms), independent of field strength, age, gender, and cardiovascular diseases. While ΔT1spleen correlated strongly with ΔSIspleen (rho = 0.70, p < 0.0001); neither indices showed significant correlations with conventional hemodynamic markers (rate pressure product) during stress. By ROC analysis, a ΔT1spleen threshold of ≥ -30 ms during stress predicted the "splenic switch-off" sign (AUC 0.90, p < 0.0001) with sensitivity (90%), specificity (88%), accuracy (90%), PPV (98%), NPV (42%). Adenosine stress and rest splenic T1-mapping is a novel method for assessing stress responses, independent of conventional hemodynamic parameters. It enables prediction of the visual "splenic switch-off" sign without the need for gadolinium, and correlates well to changes in splenic signal intensity during stress/rest perfusion imaging. ΔT1spleen holds promise to facilitate optimization of stress responses before gadolinium first-pass perfusion CMR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 13%
Other 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 12 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 36%
Sports and Recreations 7 11%
Engineering 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Psychology 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 12 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 November 2018.
All research outputs
#3,073,130
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#160
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,025
of 425,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#7
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
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 425,690 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.