A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of compressed sensing and conventional coronary magnetic resonance angiography for detection of coronary artery stenosis. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study compared compressed sensing (CS) and conventional coronary magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA) for detecting coronary artery stenosis.
  • Twenty-eight patients underwent both imaging techniques, with analysis focusing on three main coronary arteries and their segments.
  • Results showed similar sensitivity (85.2%) for both methods, but CS CMRA significantly reduced acquisition time (207s vs. 975s) while maintaining diagnostic performance.

Article Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of compressed sensing (CS) and conventional coronary magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA) in detecting coronary artery stenosis.

Method: Twenty-eight patients underwent 3 T contrast-enhanced CS and conventional CMRA; for late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging, 0.1 mmol/kg gadolinium medium was infused. CS CMRA was scanned within the LGE waiting time. After the LGE image acquisition, conventional CMRA was performed. The diagnostic performance of both CMRA for the detection of significant stenosis was evaluated using coronary angiography as a reference. The analysis was conducted to examine the three main coronary artery vessels: left anterior descending artery (LAD), left circumflex artery (LCX), and right coronary artery (RCA). These arteries were subdivided into 8 segments (LAD; main, proximal, and middle, LCX; proximal and distal, RCA; proximal, middle, and distal). Of these, hypoplastic segments and vessels after coronary stent implantation were excluded. The acquisition time of CS CMRA was compared with that of conventional CMRA.

Results: The coronary arteries were evaluated in 197 segments. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CS CMRA in detecting significant stenosis were 85.2 %, 82.5 %, and 83.2 %, respectively, on a per-segment basis. Those of conventional CMRA were 85.2 %, 86.7 %, and 86.3 %, respectively. The acquisition time was 207 s (range, 144-258 s) for CS and 975 s (range, 787-1226s) for conventional CMRA (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Similar to conventional CMRA, CS CMRA has shown potential for the detection of significant coronary artery stenosis.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109124DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

coronary artery
16
conventional cmra
16
coronary
9
cmra
9
compressed sensing
8
sensing conventional
8
conventional coronary
8
coronary magnetic
8
magnetic resonance
8
resonance angiography
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!