↓ Skip to main content

Estimation of aortic pulse wave transit time in cardiovascular magnetic resonance using complex wavelet cross-spectrum analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Estimation of aortic pulse wave transit time in cardiovascular magnetic resonance using complex wavelet cross-spectrum analysis
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12968-015-0164-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ioannis Bargiotas, Elie Mousseaux, Wen-Chung Yu, Bharath Ambale Venkatesh, Emilie Bollache, Alain de Cesare, Joao A.C. Lima, Alban Redheuil, Nadjia Kachenoura

Abstract

Aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV), which substantially increases with arterial stiffness and aging, is a major predictor of cardiovascular mortality. It is commonly estimated using applanation tonometry at carotid and femoral arterial sites (cfPWV). More recently, several cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) studies have focused on the measurement of aortic arch PWV (archPWV). Although the excellent anatomical coverage of CMR offers reliable segmental measurement of arterial length, accurate transit time (TT) determination remains a challenge. Recently, it has been demonstrated that Fourier-based methods were more robust to low temporal resolution than time-based approaches. We developed a wavelet-based method, which enables temporal localization of signal frequencies, to estimate TT from ascending and descending aortic CMR flow curves. This method (archPWVWU) combines the robustness of Fourier-based methods to low temporal resolution with the possibility to restrict the analysis to the reflectionless systolic upslope. We compared this method with Fourier-based (archPWVF) and time domain upslope (archPWVTU) methods in relation to linear correlations with age, cfPWV and effects of decreasing temporal resolution by factors of 2, 3 and 4. We studied 71 healthy subjects (45 ± 15 years, 29 females) who underwent CMR velocity acquisitions and cfPWV measurements. Comparison with age resulted in the highest correlation for the wavelet-based method (archPWVWU:r = 0.84,p < 0.001; archPWVTU:r = 0.74,p < 0.001; archPWVF:r = 0.63,p < 0.001). Associations with cfPWV resulted in the highest correlations for upslope techniques whether based on wavelet (archPWVWU:r = 0.58,p < 0.001) or time (archPWVTU:r = 0.58,p < 0.001) approach. Furthermore, while decreasing temporal resolution by 4-fold induced only a minor decrease in correlation of both archPWVWU (r decreased from 0.84 to 0.80) and archPWVF (r decreased from 0.63 to 0.51) with age, it induced a major decrease for the archPWVTU age relationship (r decreased from 0.74 to 0.38). By CMR, measurement of aortic arch flow TT using systolic upslopes resulted in a better correlation with age and cfPWV, as compared to the Fourier-based approach applied on the entire cardiac cycle. Furthermore, methods based on harmonic decomposition were less affected by low temporal resolution. Since the proposed wavelet approach combines these two advantages, it might help to overcome current technical limitations related to CMR temporal resolution and evaluation of patients with highly stiff arteries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 26%
Student > Master 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 31%
Engineering 11 26%
Computer Science 2 5%
Physics and Astronomy 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 August 2015.
All research outputs
#14,615,860
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#864
of 1,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,086
of 275,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#30
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 275,690 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.