↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Noninvasive FFR derived from coronary CT angiography in the management of coronary artery disease: technology and clinical update

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Noninvasive FFR derived from coronary CT angiography in the management of coronary artery disease: technology and clinical update
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, January 2016
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s79632
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Budoff, Rine Nakansihi

Abstract

After a decade of clinical use of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) to evaluate the anatomic severity of coronary artery disease, new methods of deriving functional information from CCTA have been developed. These methods utilize the anatomic information provided by CCTA in conjunction with computational fluid dynamics to calculate fractional flow reserve (FFR) values from CCTA image data sets. Computed tomography-derived FFR (CT-FFR) enables the identification of lesion-specific drop noninvasively. A three-dimensional CT-FFR modeling technique, which provides FFR values throughout the coronary tree (HeartFlow FFRCT analysis), has been validated against measured FFR and is now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for clinical use. This technique requires off-site supercomputer analysis. More recently, a one-dimensional computational analysis technique (Siemens cFFR), which can be performed on on-site workstations, has been developed and is currently under investigation. This article reviews CT-FFR technology and clinical evidence for its use in stable patients with suspected coronary artery disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 13 16%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 38%
Engineering 10 12%
Computer Science 3 4%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 22 27%

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 23 June 2016.
All research outputs
#4,164,061
of 7,936,934 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#233
of 401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,134
of 262,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,936,934 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 401 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 262,308 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.