↓ Skip to main content

The reproducibility of late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging of post-ablation atrial scar: a cross-over study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
The reproducibility of late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging of post-ablation atrial scar: a cross-over study
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12968-018-0438-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henry Chubb, Rashed Karim, Sébastien Roujol, Marta Nuñez-Garcia, Steven E. Williams, John Whitaker, James Harrison, Constantine Butakoff, Oscar Camara, Amedeo Chiribiri, Tobias Schaeffter, Matthew Wright, Mark O’Neill, Reza Razavi

Abstract

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging has been used to visualise post-ablation atrial scar (PAAS), generally employing a three-dimensional (3D) late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) technique. However the reproducibility of PAAS imaging has not been determined. This cross-over study is the first to investigate the reproducibility of the technique, crucial for both future research design and clinical implementation. Forty subjects undergoing first time ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) had detailed CMR assessment of PAAS. Following baseline pre-ablation scan, two scans (separated by 48 h) were performed at three months post-ablation. Each scan session included 3D LGE acquisition at 10, 20 and 30 min post administration of gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA). Subjects were allocated at second scan post-ablation to identical imaging parameters ('Repro', n = 10), 3 T scanner ('3 T', n = 10), half-slice thickness ('Half-slice', n = 10) or half GBCA dose ('Half-gad', n = 10). PAAS was compared to baseline scar and then reproducibility was assessed for two measures of thresholded scar (% left atrial (LA) occupied by PAAS (%LA PAAS) and Pulmonary Vein Encirclement (PVE)), and then four measures of non-thresholded scar (point-by-point assessment of PAAS, four normalisation methods). Thresholded measures of PAAS were evaluated against procedural outcome (AF recurrence). A total of 271 3D acquisitions (out of maximum 280, 96.7%) were acquired. At 20 and 30 min, inter-scan reproducibility was good to excellent (coefficient of variation at 20 min and 30 min: %LA PAAS 0.41 and 0.20; PVE 0.13 and 0.04 respectively for 'Repro' group). Changes in imaging parameters, especially reduced GBCA dose, reduced inter-scan reproducibility, but for most measures remained good to excellent (ICC for %LA PAAS 0.454-0.825, PVE 0.618-0.809 at 30 min). For non-thresholded scar, highest reproducibility was observed using blood pool z-score normalisation technique: inter-scan ICC 0.759 (absolute agreement, 'Repro' group). There was no significant relationship between indices of PAAS and AF recurrence. PAAS imaging is a reproducible finding. Imaging should be performed at least 20 min post-GBCA injection, and a blood pool z-score should be considered for normalisation of signal intensities. The clinical implications of these findings remain to be established in the absence of a simple correlation with arrhythmia outcome. United Kingdom National Research Ethics Service 08/H0802/68 - 30th September 2008.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Researcher 10 15%
Other 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 14 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 42%
Engineering 9 14%
Computer Science 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Energy 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 19 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,713,860
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#473
of 1,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,867
of 349,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#15
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,388 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 65% 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 349,902 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 68% 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 is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.