↓ Skip to main content

Prognostic value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance derived right ventricular function in patients with interstitial lung disease

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Prognostic value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance derived right ventricular function in patients with interstitial lung disease
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12968-015-0113-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shingo Kato, Akimasa Sekine, Yuka Kusakawa, Takashi Ogura, Masaaki Futaki, Tae Iwasawa, Hidekuni Kirigaya, Daiki Gyotoku, Naoki Iinuma, Kohei Iguchi, Tatsuya Nakachi, Kazuki Fukui, Kazuo Kimura, Satoshi Umemura

Abstract

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) provides non-invasive and more accurate assessment of right ventricular (RV) function in comparison to echocardiography. Recent study demonstrated that assessment of RV function by echocardiography was an independent predictor for mortality in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD). The purpose of this study was to determine the prognostic significance of CMR derived RV ejection fraction (RVEF) in ILD patients. We enrolled 76 patients with ILD and 24 controls in the current study. By using 1.5 T CMR scanner equipped with 32 channel cardiac coils, we performed steady-state free precession cine CMR to assess the RVEF. RV systolic dysfunction (RVSD) was defined as RVEF ≤45.0% calculated by long axis slices. Pulmonary hypertension (PH) was defined as mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) of more than 25 mmHg at rest in the setting of pulmonary capillary wedge pressure ≤15 mmHg. The median RVEF was 59.2% in controls (n = 24), 53.8% in ILD patients without PH (n = 42) and 43.1% in ILD patients with PH (n = 13) (p < 0.001 by one-way ANOVA). During a mean follow-up of 386 days, 18 patients with RVSD had 11 severe events (3 deaths, 3 right heart failure, 3 exacerbation of dyspnea requiring oxygen, 2 pneumonia requiring hospitalization). In contrast, only 2 exacerbation of dyspnea requiring oxygen were observed in 58 patients without RVSD. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that RVEF independently predicted future events, after adjusting for age, sex and RVFAC by echocardiography (hazard ratio: 0.889, 95% confidence interval: 0.809 - 0.976, p = 0.014). The current study demonstrated that RVSD in ILD patients can be clearly detected by cine CMR. Importantly, low prevalence of PH (17%) indicated that population included many mild ILD patients. CMR derived RVEF might be useful for the risk stratification and clinical management of ILD patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 21%
Student > Master 6 16%
Other 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Unknown 10 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 April 2015.
All research outputs
#16,967,134
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,061
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#217,704
of 369,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#21
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 369,045 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.