↓ Skip to main content

Using a respiratory navigator significantly reduces variability when quantifying left ventricular torsion with cardiovascular magnetic resonance

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Using a respiratory navigator significantly reduces variability when quantifying left ventricular torsion with cardiovascular magnetic resonance
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12968-017-0338-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sean M. Hamlet, Christopher M. Haggerty, Jonathan D. Suever, Gregory J. Wehner, Kristin N. Andres, David K. Powell, Richard J. Charnigo, Brandon K. Fornwalt

Abstract

Left ventricular (LV) torsion is an important indicator of cardiac function that is limited by high inter-test variability (50% of the mean value). We hypothesized that this high inter-test variability is partly due to inconsistent breath-hold positions during serial image acquisitions, which could be significantly improved by using a respiratory navigator for cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) based quantification of LV torsion. We assessed respiratory-related variability in measured LV torsion with two distinct experimental protocols. First, 17 volunteers were recruited for CMR with cine displacement encoding with stimulated echoes (DENSE) in which a respiratory navigator was used to measure and then enforce variability in end-expiratory position between all LV basal and apical acquisitions. From these data, we quantified the inter-test variability of torsion in the absence and presence of enforced end-expiratory position variability, which established an upper bound for the expected torsion variability. For the second experiment (in 20 new, healthy volunteers), 10 pairs of cine DENSE basal and apical images were each acquired from consecutive breath-holds and consecutive navigator-gated scans (with a single acceptance position). Inter-test variability of torsion was compared between the breath-hold and navigator-gated scans to quantify the variability due to natural breath-hold variation. To demonstrate the importance of these variability reductions, we quantified the reduction in sample size required to detect a clinically meaningful change in LV torsion with the use of a respiratory navigator. The mean torsion was 3.4 ± 0.2°/cm. From the first experiment, enforced variability in end-expiratory position translated to considerable variability in measured torsion (0.56 ± 0.34°/cm), whereas inter-test variability with consistent end-expiratory position was 57% lower (0.24 ± 0.16°/cm, p < 0.001). From the second experiment, natural respiratory variability from consecutive breath-holds translated to a variability in torsion of 0.24 ± 0.10°/cm, which was significantly higher than the variability from navigator-gated scans (0.18 ± 0.06°/cm, p = 0.02). By using a respiratory navigator with DENSE, theoretical sample sizes were reduced from 66 to 16 and 26 to 15 as calculated from the two experiments. A substantial portion (22-57%) of the inter-test variability of LV torsion can be reduced by using a respiratory navigator to ensure a consistent breath-hold position between image acquisitions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 14%
Student > Master 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 43%
Engineering 2 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 02 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,915,082
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#611
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,264
of 325,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#29
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 325,363 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.