↓ Skip to main content

High-throughput gadobutrol-enhanced CMR: a time and dose optimization study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 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
High-throughput gadobutrol-enhanced CMR: a time and dose optimization study
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12968-017-0400-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tommaso D’Angelo, Chrysanthos Grigoratos, Silvio Mazziotti, Konstantinos Bratis, Faraz Pathan, Alfredo Blandino, Elen Elen, Valentina O. Puntmann, Eike Nagel

Abstract

Reducing time and contrast agent doses are important goals to provide cost-efficient cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging. Limited information is available regarding the feasibility of evaluating left ventricular (LV) function after gadobutrol injection as well as defining the lowest dose for high quality scar imaging. We sought to evaluate both aspects separately and systematically to provide an optimized protocol for contrast-enhanced CMR (CE-CMR) using gadobutrol. This is a prospective, randomized, single-blind cross-over study performed in two different populations. The first population consisted of 30 patients with general indications for a rest CE-CMR who underwent cine-imaging before and immediately after intravenous administration of 0.1 mmol/kg body-weight of gadobutrol. Quantitative assessment of LV volumes and function was performed by the same reader in a randomized and blinded fashion. The second population was composed of 30 patients with indication to late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging, which was performed twice at different gadobutrol doses (0.1 mmol/kg vs. 0.2 mmol/kg) and at different time delays (5 and 10 min vs. 5, 10, 15 and 20 min), within a maximal interval of 21 days. LGE images were analysed qualitatively (contrast-to-noise ratio) and quantitatively (LGE%-of-mass). Excellent correlation between pre- and post-contrast cine-imaging was found, with no difference of LV stroke volume and ejection fraction (p = 0.538 and p = 0.095, respectively). End-diastolic-volume and end-systolic-volume were measured significantly larger after contrast injection (p = 0.008 and p = 0.001, respectively), with a mean difference of 3.7 ml and 2.9 ml, respectively. LGE imaging resulted in optimal contrast-to-noise ratios 10 min post-injection for a gadobutrol dose of 0.1 mmol/kg body-weight and 20 min for a dose of 0.2 mmol/kg body-weight. At these time points LGE quantification did not significantly differ (0.1 mmol/kg: 11% (16.4); 0.2 mmol/kg: 12% (14.5); p = 0.059), showing excellent correlation (ICC = 0.957; p < 0.001). A standardized CE-CMR rest protocol giving a dose of 0.1 mmol/kg of gadobutrol before cine-imaging and performing LGE 10 min after injection represents a fast low-dose protocol without significant loss of information in comparison to a longer protocol with cine-imaging before contrast injection and a higher dose of gadobutrol. This approach allows to reduce examination time and costs as well as minimize contrast-agent exposure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 %
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 15 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 19 43%
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 22 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,408,676
of 25,523,622 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#575
of 1,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,154
of 342,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#27
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,523,622 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,379 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 57% 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 342,813 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 65% 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 is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.