↓ Skip to main content

Respiratory influence on left atrial volume calculation with 3D-echocardiography

Overview of attention for article published in Cardiovascular Ultrasound, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Respiratory influence on left atrial volume calculation with 3D-echocardiography
Published in
Cardiovascular Ultrasound, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12947-016-0054-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mathias Sørgaard, Jesper J. Linde, Hafsa Ismail, Niels Risum, Klaus F. Kofoed, Jørgen T. Kühl, Benjamin Tittle, Walter B. Nielsen, Jens D. Hove

Abstract

Left atrial volume (LAV) estimation with 3D echocardiography has been shown to be more accurate than 2D volume calculation. However, little is known about the possible effect of respiratory movements on the accuracy of the measurement. 100 consecutive patients admitted with chest pain were examined with 3D echocardiography and LAV was quantified during inspiratory breath hold, expiratory breath hold and during free breathing. Of the 100 patients, only 65 had an echocardiographic window that allowed for 3D echocardiography in the entire respiratory cycle. Mean atrial end diastolic volume was 45.4 ± 14.5 during inspiratory breath hold, 46.4 ± 14.8 during expiratory breath hold and 45.6 ± 14.3 during free respiration. Mean end systolic volume was 17.6 ± 7.8 during inspiratory breath hold, 18.8 ± 8.0 during expiratory breath hold and 18.3 ± 8.0 during free respiration. No significant differences were seen in any of the measured parameters. The present study adds to the feasibility of 3D LAV quantitation. LAV estimation by 3D echocardiography may be performed during either end-expiratory or end-inspiratory breath-hold without any significant difference in the calculated volume. Also, the LAV estimation may be performed during free breathing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Researcher 3 21%
Other 2 14%
Librarian 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Other 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 43%
Engineering 2 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
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 13 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#258
of 328 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#233,757
of 315,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cardiovascular Ultrasound
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 328 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 315,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.