↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of skeletal muscle microvascular perfusion of lower extremities by cardiovascular magnetic resonance arterial spin labeling, blood oxygenation level-dependent, and intravoxel incoherent…

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Evaluation of skeletal muscle microvascular perfusion of lower extremities by cardiovascular magnetic resonance arterial spin labeling, blood oxygenation level-dependent, and intravoxel incoherent motion techniques
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12968-018-0441-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shiteng Suo, Lan Zhang, Hui Tang, Qihong Ni, Suqin Li, Haimin Mao, Xiangyu Liu, Shengyun He, Jianxun Qu, Qing Lu, Jianrong Xu

Abstract

Noninvasive cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) techniques including arterial spin labeling (ASL), blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD), and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM), are capable of measuring tissue perfusion-related parameters. We sought to evaluate and compare these three CMR techniques in characterizing skeletal muscle perfusion in lower extremities and to investigate their abilities to diagnose and assess the severity of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Fifteen healthy young subjects, 14 patients with PAD, and 10 age-matched healthy old subjects underwent ASL, BOLD, and IVIM CMR perfusion imaging. Healthy young and healthy old participants were subjected to a cuff-induced ischemia experiment with pressures of 20 mmHg and 40 mmHg above systolic pressure during imaging. Perfusion-related metrics, including blood flow, T2* relaxation time, perfusion fraction f, diffusion coefficient D, and pseudodiffusion coefficient D*, were measured in the anterior, lateral, soleus, and gastrocnemius muscle groups. Friedman, Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon signed rank, and Spearman rank correlation tests were used for statistical analysis. In cases of significant differences determined by the Friedman test (P < 0.05), blood flow, T2*, and D values gradually decreased, while f values showed a tendency to increase in healthy subjects under cuff compression. No significant correlations were found among the ASL, BOLD, and IVIM parameters (all P > 0.05). Blood flow and T2* values showed significant positive correlations with transcutaneous oxygen pressure measurements (ρ = 0.465 and 0.522, respectively; both P ≤ 0.001), while f values showed a significant negative correlation in healthy young subjects (ρ = - 0.351; P = 0.018). T2* was independent of age in every muscle group. T2* values were significantly decreased in PAD patients compared with healthy old subjects and severe PAD patients compared with mild-to-moderate PAD patients (all P < 0.0125). Significant correlations were found between T2* and ankle-brachial index values in all muscle groups in PAD patients (ρ = 0.644-0.837; all P < 0.0125). Other imaging parameters failed to show benefits towards the diagnosis and disease severity evaluation of PAD. ASL, BOLD, and IVIM provide complementary information regarding tissue perfusion. Compared with ASL and IVIM, BOLD may be a more reliable technique for assessing PAD in the resting state and could thus be applied together with angiography in clinical studies as a tool to comprehensively assess microvascular and macrovascular properties in PAD 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 13 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 31%
Engineering 12 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Sports and Recreations 4 7%
Physics and Astronomy 2 3%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 18 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,548,753
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#1,091
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,429
of 349,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#21
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 349,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.