↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging in left main stem or equivalent coronary artery disease: a CE-MARC substudy

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 X users

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
A comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging in left main stem or equivalent coronary artery disease: a CE-MARC substudy
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12968-017-0398-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

James R. J. Foley, Ananth Kidambi, John D. Biglands, Neil Maredia, Catherine J. Dickinson, Sven Plein, John P. Greenwood

Abstract

Assessment of left main stem (LMS) stenosis has prognostic and therapeutic implications. Data on assessment of LMS disease by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) are limited. CE-MARC is the largest prospective comparison of CMR and SPECT against quantitative invasive coronary angiography (QCA) for detection of coronary artery disease (CAD), and provided the framework for this evaluation. The aims of this study were to compare diagnostic accuracy of visual and quantitative perfusion CMR to SPECT in patients with LMS stable CAD. Fifty-four patients from the CE-MARC study were included: 27 (4%) with significant LMS or LMS-equivalent disease on QCA, and 27 age/sex-matched patients with no flow-limiting CAD. All patients underwent multi-parametric CMR, SPECT and QCA. Performance of visual and quantitative perfusion CMR by Fermi-constrained deconvolution to detect LMS disease was compared with SPECT. Of 27 patients in the LMS group, 22 (81%) had abnormal CMR and 16 (59%) had abnormal SPECT. All patients with abnormal CMR had abnormal perfusion by visual analysis. CMR demonstrated significantly higher area under the curve (AUC) for detection of disease (0.95; 0.85-0.99) over SPECT (0.63; 0.49-0.76) (p = 0.0001). Global mean stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) by CMR in LMS patients was significantly lower than controls (1.77 ± 0.72 ml/g/min vs. 3.28 ± 1.20 ml/g/min, p < 0.001). MBF of <2.08 ml/g/min had sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 85% for diagnosis of LMS disease, with an AUC (0.87; 0.75-0.94) not significantly different to visual CMR analysis (p = 0.18), and more accurate than SPECT (p = 0.003). Visual stress perfusion CMR had higher diagnostic accuracy than SPECT to detect LMS disease. Quantitative perfusion CMR had similar performance to visual CMR perfusion analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Master 5 10%
Lecturer 4 8%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 15 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 54%
Engineering 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 24 December 2017.
All research outputs
#1,911,663
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#62
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,421
of 343,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#6
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 343,411 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.