↓ Skip to main content

Free breathing contrast-enhanced time-resolved magnetic resonance angiography in pediatric and adult congenital heart disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Free breathing contrast-enhanced time-resolved magnetic resonance angiography in pediatric and adult congenital heart disease
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12968-015-0138-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer A Steeden, Bejal Pandya, Oliver Tann, Vivek Muthurangu

Abstract

Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) is generally performed during a long breath-hold (BH), limiting its utility in infants and small children. This study proposes a free-breathing (FB) time resolved MRA (TRA) technique for use in pediatric and adult congenital heart disease (CHD). A TRA sequence was developed by combining spiral trajectories with sensitivity encoding (SENSE, x4 kx-ky and x2 kz) and partial Fourier (75% in kz). As no temporal data sharing is used, an independent 3D data set was acquired every ~1.3s, with acceptable spatial resolution (~2.3x2.3x2.3mm). The technique was tested during FB over 50 consecutive volumes. Conventional BH-MRA and FB-TRA data was acquired in 45 adults and children with CHD. We calculated quantitative image quality for both sequences. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed in all patients from both sequences. Additionally, vessel measurements were made at the sinotubular junction (N = 43), proximal descending aorta (N = 43), descending aorta at the level of the diaphragm (N = 43), main pulmonary artery (N = 35), left pulmonary artery (N = 35) and the right pulmonary artery (N = 35). Intra and inter observer variability was assessed in a subset of 10 patients. BH-MRA had significantly higher homogeneity in non-contrast enhancing tissue (coefficient of variance, P <0.0001), signal-to-noise ratio (P <0.0001), contrast-to-noise ratio (P <0.0001) and relative contrast (P = 0.02) compared to the FB-TRA images. However, homogeneity in the vessels was similar in both techniques (P = 0.52) and edge sharpness was significantly (P <0.0001) higher in FB-TRA compared to BH-MRA. BH-MRA provided overall diagnostic accuracy of 82%, and FB-TRA of 87%, with no statistical difference between the two sequences (P = 0.77). Vessel diameter measurements showed excellent agreement between the two techniques (r = 0.98, P <0.05), with no bias (0.0mm, P = 0.71), and clinically acceptable limits of agreement (-2.7 to +2.8mm). Inter and intra observer reproducibility showed good agreement of vessel diameters (r>0.988, P<0.0001), with negligible biases (between -0.2 and +0.1mm) and small limits of agreement (between -2.4 and +2.5mm). We have described a FB-TRA technique that is shown to enable accurate diagnosis and vessel measures compared to conventional BH-MRA. This simplifies the MRA technique and will enable angiography to be performed in children and adults whom find breath-holding difficult.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 34 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Other 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 51%
Engineering 2 6%
Mathematics 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 29%
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 24 May 2015.
All research outputs
#15,982,712
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#988
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,186
of 282,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#24
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 7.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 282,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.