↓ Skip to main content

Detection of elevated right ventricular extracellular volume in pulmonary hypertension using Accelerated and Navigator-Gated Look-Locker Imaging for Cardiac T1 Estimation (ANGIE) cardiovascular…

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Detection of elevated right ventricular extracellular volume in pulmonary hypertension using Accelerated and Navigator-Gated Look-Locker Imaging for Cardiac T1 Estimation (ANGIE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance
Published in
Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12968-015-0209-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bhairav B. Mehta, Daniel A. Auger, Jorge A. Gonzalez, Virginia Workman, Xiao Chen, Kelvin Chow, Claire J. Stump, Sula Mazimba, Jamie L. W. Kennedy, Elizabeth Gay, Michael Salerno, Christopher M. Kramer, Frederick H. Epstein, Kenneth C. Bilchick

Abstract

Assessment of diffuse right ventricular (RV) fibrosis is of particular interest in pulmonary hypertension (PH) and heart failure (HF). Current cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) T1 mapping techniques such as Modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) imaging have limited resolution, but accelerated and navigator-gated Look-Locker imaging for cardiac T1 estimation (ANGIE) is a novel CMR sequence with spatial resolution suitable for T1 mapping of the RV. We tested the hypothesis that patients with PH would have significantly more RV fibrosis detected with MRI ANGIE compared with normal volunteers and patients having HF with reduced (LV) ejection fraction (HFrEF) without co-existing PH, independent of RV dilitation and dysfunction. Patients with World Health Organization group 1 or group 4 PH, patients with HFrEF without PH, and normal volunteers were recruited to undergo contrast-enhanced CMR. RV and LV extracellular volume fractions (RV-ECV and LV-ECV) were determined using pre-contrast and post-contrast T1 mapping using ANGIE (RV and LV) and MOLLI (LV only). Thirty-two participants (53.1 % female, median age 52 years, IQR 26-65 years) were enrolled, including n = 12 with PH, n = 10 having HFrEF without co-existing PH, and n = 10 normal volunteers. ANGIE ECV imaging was of high quality, and ANGIE measurements of LV-ECV were highly correlated with those of MOLLI (r = 0.91; p < 0.001). The RV-ECV in PH patients was 27.2 % greater than the RV-ECV in normal volunteers (0.341 v. 0.268; p < 0.0001) and 18.9 % greater than the RV-ECV in HFrEF patients without PH (0.341 v. 0.287; p < 0.0001). RV-ECV was greater than LV-ECV in PH (RV-LV difference = 0.04), but RV-ECV was nearly equivalent to LV-ECV in normal volunteers (RV-LV difference = 0.002) (p < 0.0001 for RV-LV difference in PH versus normal volunteers). RV-ECV was linearly associated with both increasing RVEDVI (p = 0.049) and decreasing RVEF (p = 0.04) in a multivariable linear model, but PH was still associated with greater RV-ECV even after adjustment for RVEDVI and RVEF. Pre- and post-contrast ANGIE imaging provides high-resolution ECV determination for the RV. PH is independently associated with increased RV-ECV even after adjustment for RV dilatation and dysfunction, consistent with an independent effect of PH on fibrosis. ANGIE RV imaging merits further clinical evaluation in PH.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 58 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 20%
Other 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Unspecified 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 14 23%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 37%
Engineering 7 12%
Unspecified 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#5,514,120
of 26,109,760 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#368
of 1,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,218
of 399,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Diagnostic Imaging
#16
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,109,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,390 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 399,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.