↓ Skip to main content

CMR fluoroscopy right heart catheterization for cardiac output and pulmonary vascular resistance: results in 102 patients

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, July 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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
CMR fluoroscopy right heart catheterization for cardiac output and pulmonary vascular resistance: results in 102 patients
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12968-017-0366-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toby Rogers, Kanishka Ratnayaka, Jaffar M. Khan, Annette Stine, William H. Schenke, Laurie P. Grant, Jonathan R. Mazal, Elena K. Grant, Adrienne Campbell-Washburn, Michael S. Hansen, Rajiv Ramasawmy, Daniel A. Herzka, Hui Xue, Peter Kellman, Anthony Z. Faranesh, Robert J. Lederman

Abstract

Quantification of cardiac output and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) are critical components of invasive hemodynamic assessment, and can be measured concurrently with pressures using phase contrast CMR flow during real-time CMR guided cardiac catheterization. One hundred two consecutive patients underwent CMR fluoroscopy guided right heart catheterization (RHC) with simultaneous measurement of pressure, cardiac output and pulmonary vascular resistance using CMR flow and the Fick principle for comparison. Procedural success, catheterization time and adverse events were prospectively collected. RHC was successfully completed in 97/102 (95.1%) patients without complication. Catheterization time was 20 ± 11 min. In patients with and without pulmonary hypertension, baseline mean pulmonary artery pressure was 39 ± 12 mmHg vs. 18 ± 4 mmHg (p < 0.001), right ventricular (RV) end diastolic volume was 104 ± 64 vs. 74 ± 24 (p = 0.02), and RV end-systolic volume was 49 ± 30 vs. 31 ± 13 (p = 0.004) respectively. 103 paired cardiac output and 99 paired PVR calculations across multiple conditions were analyzed. At baseline, the bias between cardiac output by CMR and Fick was 5.9% with limits of agreement -38.3% and 50.2% with r = 0.81 (p < 0.001). The bias between PVR by CMR and Fick was -0.02 WU.m(2) with limits of agreement -2.6 and 2.5 WU.m(2) with r = 0.98 (p < 0.001). Correlation coefficients were lower and limits of agreement wider during physiological provocation with inhaled 100% oxygen and 40 ppm nitric oxide. CMR fluoroscopy guided cardiac catheterization is safe, with acceptable procedure times and high procedural success rate. Cardiac output and PVR measurements using CMR flow correlated well with the Fick at baseline and are likely more accurate during physiological provocation with supplemental high-concentration inhaled oxygen. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01287026 , registered January 25, 2011.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 5 9%
Professor 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 16 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 14 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Sports and Recreations 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 18 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,934,980
of 26,109,760 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#150
of 1,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,477
of 332,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#7
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,109,760 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 1,390 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 89% 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 332,308 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 68% of its contemporaries.