↓ Skip to main content

Single breath-hold 3D measurement of left atrial volume using compressed sensing cardiovascular magnetic resonance and a non-model-based reconstruction approach

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Single breath-hold 3D measurement of left atrial volume using compressed sensing cardiovascular magnetic resonance and a non-model-based reconstruction approach
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12968-015-0147-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Orestis Vardoulis, Pierre Monney, Amit Bermano, Amir Vaxman, Craig Gotsman, Janine Schwitter, Matthias Stuber, Nikolaos Stergiopulos, Juerg Schwitter

Abstract

Left atrial (LA) dilatation is associated with a large variety of cardiac diseases. Current cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) strategies to measure LA volumes are based on multi-breath-hold multi-slice acquisitions, which are time-consuming and susceptible to misregistration. To develop a time-efficient single breath-hold 3D CMR acquisition and reconstruction method to precisely measure LA volumes and function. A highly accelerated compressed-sensing multi-slice cine sequence (CS-cineCMR) was combined with a non-model-based 3D reconstruction method to measure LA volumes with high temporal and spatial resolution during a single breath-hold. This approach was validated in LA phantoms of different shapes and applied in 3 patients. In addition, the influence of slice orientations on accuracy was evaluated in the LA phantoms for the new approach in comparison with a conventional model-based biplane area-length reconstruction. As a reference in patients, a self-navigated high-resolution whole-heart 3D dataset (3D-HR-CMR) was acquired during mid-diastole to yield accurate LA volumes. Phantom studies. LA volumes were accurately measured by CS-cineCMR with a mean difference of -4.73 ± 1.75 ml (-8.67 ± 3.54 %, r(2) = 0.94). For the new method the calculated volumes were not significantly different when different orientations of the CS-cineCMR slices were applied to cover the LA phantoms. Long-axis "aligned" vs "not aligned" with the phantom long-axis yielded similar differences vs the reference volume (-4.87 ± 1.73 ml vs -4.45 ± 1.97 ml, p = 0.67) and short-axis "perpendicular" vs "not-perpendicular" with the LA long-axis (-4.72 ± 1.66 ml vs -4.75 ± 2.13 ml; p = 0.98). The conventional bi-plane area-length method was susceptible for slice orientations (p = 0.0085 for the interaction of "slice orientation" and "reconstruction technique", 2-way ANOVA for repeated measures). To use the 3D-HR-CMR as the reference for LA volumes in patients, it was validated in the LA phantoms (mean difference: -1.37 ± 1.35 ml, -2.38 ± 2.44 %, r(2) = 0.97). Patient study: The CS-cineCMR LA volumes of the mid-diastolic frame matched closely with the reference LA volume (measured by 3D-HR-CMR) with a difference of -2.66 ± 6.5 ml (3.0 % underestimation; true LA volumes: 63 ml, 62 ml, and 395 ml). Finally, a high intra- and inter-observer agreement for maximal and minimal LA volume measurement is also shown. The proposed method combines a highly accelerated single-breathhold compressed-sensing multi-slice CMR technique with a non-model-based 3D reconstruction to accurately and reproducibly measure LA volumes and function.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Switzerland 1 3%
Unknown 30 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 12 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 25%
Computer Science 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 19%
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 23 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,844,429
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#597
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,373
of 281,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#16
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 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 1,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 281,525 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.