FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1965108529> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1965108529 endingPage "361" @default.
• W1965108529 startingPage "356" @default.
• W1965108529 abstract "The tremendous progress in the field of cardiac imaging has drawn the interest of many radiologists, but has left them uncertain as to how obtain the training necessary to become expert practitioners. This review addresses the challenges in establishing a cardiac imaging service including equipment issues, training and credentialing issues, as well as referrals and reimbursement. The tremendous progress in the field of cardiac imaging has drawn the interest of many radiologists, but has left them uncertain as to how obtain the training necessary to become expert practitioners. This review addresses the challenges in establishing a cardiac imaging service including equipment issues, training and credentialing issues, as well as referrals and reimbursement. Advances in imaging technology have made radiology one of the most exciting fields in medicine, with new advances occurring at a tremendous pace. The requirements inherent in cardiac imaging are largely responsible for the amazing developments of computed tomographic (CT) scanner technology, as the various vendors have progressively improved their equipment to render high-resolution images of the coronary arterial system free of motion artifact. Similarly, improvements in magnetic resonance (MR) scanner gradient hardware and coils have led to the development of parallel imaging techniques that markedly accelerate image acquisitions, making breath-hold cine images of the heart possible. In addition, robust new software sequences have been developed that provide high-resolution imaging of myocardial scar, with a precision not previously possible. The rapidity of change, as well as the complexity of the techniques involved in cardiovascular imaging, has left many practicing radiologists impressed but also intimidated. Although the field has tremendous appeal, and many fear its loss to other specialties, the path that practicing radiologists should take to obtain this training is unclear. One of the primary obstacles facing radiologists who wish to become experts in cardiovascular imaging is a lack of familiarity with imaging of the heart, largely due to a lack of clinical training and inadequate exposure to cases during residency. The imaging planes that are second nature to echocardiographers are completely foreign to most practicing radiologists. Nonetheless, they form the backbone of MR imaging planes and are also commonly used in CT evaluation. The Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments has developed an initiative called the Manhattan Project to ensure that the current generation of radiology residents receive adequate teaching in cardiovascular radiology. However, this is of little comfort to those currently in practice. This article addresses the challenges facing practicing radiologists who want to become adept in this emerging field and suggests some possible solutions. The challenges facing practicing radiologists center on 4 general areas:1Equipment,2Training and credentialing,3Referrals, and4Reimbursement. This potentially represents an advantage for radiologists performing cardiovascular imaging over cardiologists, in that the equipment has a variety of other uses. Certain minimum equipment requirements must be met, however, to successfully perform cardiovascular imaging. The following statements are guidelines and mirror those given in the ACR’s Practice Guidelines and Technical Standards. Minimum requirements include electrocardiographic gating capabilities and appropriate coils and software for the cardiac sequences. In addition, the magnet must have gradients capable of steady-state free precession imaging. The scanner should also have the capability to perform viability delayed-enhancement imaging. Parallel imaging capabilities are not mandatory but are extremely helpful. Last, most of the cardiac imaging packages include angiographic sequences, which are a valuable accompaniment for comprehensive cardiovascular imaging. Often, scanners can be upgraded to achieve these minimum requirements at a reasonable expense. Sixty-four-slice scanners are a necessity. Current-generation 64-slice scanners from all manufacturers have detector sizes of 0.625 mm or smaller and temporal resolutions of 200 ms or better (with the half-scan technique). Eventually, dual-source computed tomography with improved temporal resolution (83 ms) may become the standard. In addition to the scanner requirements, postprocessing requirements include a dedicated workstation capable of multiplanar reformations and the creation of maximum-intensity projections and volume-rendered images. These are available from virtually all scanner manufacturers. In addition, excellent aftermarket workstations are made by third-party vendors and interface seamlessly with any CT scanner or picture archiving and communication system network. Specific purchasing decisions should be based on a thorough evaluation of the various scanners and workstations and are beyond the scope of this article. Once an institutional commitment has been made to obtain or upgrade the equipment necessary for cardiovascular imaging, a practicing radiologist needs to obtain the necessary training. The training pathways are significantly different for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac MR imaging and are considered separately. For a radiologist to meet the ACR’s cardiac computed tomography training requirements, the guidelines specify as follows [1American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for the performance and interpretation of cardiac computed tomography. Available at: http://www.acr.org/s_acr/bin.asp?CID=546+DID=22486+DOC=FILE.PDF. Accessed December 5, 2006.Google Scholar]: The supervising and interpreting physician with prior qualifications in general and/or thoracic CT interpretation should also meet one of the following requirements:aTraining in cardiac CT in an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) or an American Osteopathic Association (AOA) approved training program to include:iEducation in cardiac anatomy, physiology, pathology, and cardiac CT imaging for a time equivalent to at least 30 hours of CME [continuing medical education].andiiThe interpretation, reporting, and/or supervised review of at least 50 cardiac CT examinations in the last 36 months. Coronary artery calcium scoring does not qualify as meeting these requirements.orbCompletion of at least 30 hours of Category I CME in cardiac imaging, including:iCardiac CT, anatomy, physiology, and/or pathology, or documented equivalent supervised experience in a center actively performing cardiac CT.andiiThe interpretation, reporting, and/or supervised review of at least 50 cardiac CT examinations in the last 36 months. Coronary artery calcium scoring does not qualify as meeting these requirements. The maintenance of certification requires the performance of 75 examinations every 3 years, excluding those performed for calcium scoring. In addition, 150 hours of continuing medical education every 3 years are required. This training is significantly different from that required of a cardiologist [2Budoff M.J. Achenbach S. Fayad Z. et al.Task Force 12: training in advanced cardiovascular imaging (computed tomography): endorsed by the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention, and Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47: 915-920Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar] (Table 1, Table 2).Table 1Training requirementsACR Cardiac CT Training Requirements for a RadiologistACC Cardiac CT Training Requirements•Certification in radiology or diagnostic radiology or completed an ACGME-approved radiology program•Supervision/interpretation of 50 cardiac CT cases, excluding those performed exclusively for calcium scoring in the past 36 months•30 hours of category I CME in cardiac imagingContinuing Experience/Education∼75 exams every three years, excluding those performed exclusively for calcium scoring∼150 hours of CME every three years, including general CME and cardiac CT as appropriate to the radiologist’s practiceReferencehttp://www.acr.org/s_acr/bin.asp?CID=546&DID=24523&DOC=FILE.PDF•Level 1 Training ∘4 weeks training ∘50 exams interpreted (Under supervision of qualified level 2 or 3 trained mentor)Note: Level 2 or 3 training is required for the interpretation of Cardiac CT (CCT)•Level 2 Training (noncontrast) ∘Board certification or eligibility ∘4 weeks training ∘50 noncontrast exams performed; 150 noncontrast exams interpreted ∘20 hours of courses/lectures related to CT and/or CCTContinuing Experience/Education∼50 noncontrast CCT conducted/interpreted each year∼20 hours of category I CME in CCT every 36 months•Level 2 Training (contrast) ∘Board certification or eligibility ∘8 weeks training ∘50 contrast exams performed ∘150 contrast exams interpreted ∘50 noncontrast exams interpreted ∘20 hours of courses/lectures related to CT or CCTContinuing Experience/Education∼50 contrast CCT conducted/interpreted each year∼20 hours of category I CME in CCT every 36 monthsNote: Contrast studies include CT AngiographyReferencehttp://www.acc.org/qualityandscience/clinical/competence/nuclear/TF12CT.pdf Open table in a new tab Table 2Training requirementsACR Cardiac CT Training Requirements for Non-RadiologistsACC Cardiac CT Training Requirements• Completion of sufficient training and experience to meet the qualifications of the ACR Practice Guideline for Performing and Interpreting Diagnostic Computed Tomography (CT). For a physician who assumes responsibilities for CT imaging exclusively in a specific anatomical area such as cardiac CT, this includes:• Completion of an ACGME-approved training program in the specialty practiced plus 200 hours of Category I CME in the performance and interpretation of CT in the subspecialty where CT reading occurs.• Supervision, interpretation, and reporting of 500 cases, at least 100 of which must be a combination of thoracic CT or thoracic CT angiography during the past 36 months in a supervised situation. Coronary artery calcium scoring does not qualify as meeting these requirements.• Included in the above, completion of at least 30 hours of Category I CME in cardiac imaging, including ∘ Cardiac CT, anatomy, physiology, or pathology, or documented equivalent supervised experience in a center actively performed cardiac CT. ∘ The interpretation, reporting, or supervised review of at least 50 cardiac CT examinations in the last 36 months.Coronary artery calcium scoring does not qualify as meeting these requirements.Continuing Experience/Education∼75 exams every three years, excluding those performed exclusively for calcium scoring∼150 hours of CME every three years. This includes general CME and cardiac CT as appropriate to the radiologist’s practice.Referencehttp://www.acr.org/s_acr/bin.asp?CID=546&DID=24523&DOC=FILE.PDF•Level 1 Training ∘4 weeks training ∘50 exams interpreted (under supervision of qualified level 2 or 3 trained mentor)Note: Level 2 or 3 training are required for the interpretation of Cardiac CT (CCT).•Level 2 Training (noncontrast) ∘Board certification or eligibility ∘4 weeks training ∘50 noncontrast exams performed; 150 noncontrast exams interpreted ∘20 hours of courses/lectures related to CT or CCTContinuing Experience/Education∼50 noncontrast CCT conducted/interpreted each year∼20 hours of category I CME in CCT every 36 months•Level 2 Training (contrast) ∘Board certification or eligibility ∘8 weeks training ∘50 contrast exams performed ∘150 contrast exams interpreted ∘50 noncontrast exams interpreted ∘20 hours of course/lectures related to CT or CCTContinuing Experience/Education∼50 contrast CCT conducted/interpreted each year∼20 hours of category I CME in CCT every 36 monthsNote: Contrast studies include CT AngiographyReferencehttp://www.acc.org/qualityandscience/clinical/competence/nuclear/TF12CT.pdf Open table in a new tab A variety of facilities are currently offering training courses in coronary CT angiography (CTA), and a Google search for “coronary CT training” yielded 2.69 million hits. The multiplicity of choices can be bewildering, and finding a program that will be right for an individual radiologist can be problematic. A trainee may find it helpful to review training options at Web sites such as those of the ACR (http://www.acr.org) and the Radiological Society of North America (http://www.rsna.org), as well as AuntMinnie.com. These sites list lectures by radiologists, as well as some courses. However, an alternative starting point would be to go to the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography’s Web site (http://www.scct.org). This organization is composed predominantly of cardiologists (approximately 70%), but more and more radiologists are joining, and at any rate, the Web site gives a comprehensive listing of programs by geographic location. In addition, most listings on this site discuss the equipment and workstations used. Many vendors often have affiliated programs, and training may be offered in conjunction with a scanner purchase. What should a radiologist look for in a cardiac CT training program? In evaluating possible training programs, a clinician should ensure that adequate case material will be offered. In addition, hands-on postprocessing instruction at a dedicated workstation is extremely important for both CT and MR imaging. Comparisons of CT images with correlative studies such as cardiac catheterizations, single photon-emission computed tomographic (SPECT) studies, and echocardiographic images when appropriate are also very helpful. These requirements are usually easy to anticipate and should allow a practicing clinician to get from the raw images to the correct diagnosis. What may receive inadequate attention at the time that one is choosing a training program, but is absolutely essential, is adequate exposure to the patient preparation in order to ensure that high-quality images are obtained. For both CT and MR imaging, patient preparation is of key importance. For instance, breathing instructions and practicing reproducible breathing is essential to obtain high-quality cardiac MR and CT images. Pharmacologic agents are often administered for CTA, including β-blockers for those patients whose heart rates exceed 65 beats per minute. A trainee should develop an understanding of why a particular agent was chosen, as well as an understanding of the pharmacokinetics of that agent as related to the rate of administration and the timing of the β-blocker administration. In this fashion, the trainee can develop a well-reasoned approach to β-blocker administration. In similar fashion, the use of nitroglycerin should be addressed, because it is often helpful in achieving maximum dilatation of the coronary arteries and improving small-vessel delineation. Image acquisition strategies should also addressed, such as the use of bolus tracking or a timing bolus for image triggering. Last, a trainee should be certain that the training facility will provide the opportunity to be physically present during the scan acquisition, to develop a complete understanding of the complex interplay between contrast administration, breathing instruction, and scan initiation. Although coronary CTA is currently the sexy new kid on the block, cardiac MR has much to recommend it. It is the best study for the evaluation of myocardial viability and infarction. It is superior to stress myocardial perfusion imaging for the detection of coronary artery disease [3Klem I. Heitner J.F. Shah D.J. et al.Improved detection of coronary artery disease by stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance with the use of delayed enhancement infarction imaging.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47: 1630-1638Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (329) Google Scholar, 4Wagner A. Mahrholdt H. Sechtem U. Kim R.J. Judd R.M. MR imaging of myocardial perfusion and viability.Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2003; 11: 49-66Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar]. Pattern recognition in cardiac MR allows the distinction between various cardiomyopathies [5Mahrholdt H. Wagner A. Judd R.M. Sechtem U. Kim R.J. Delayed enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of non-ischaemic cardiomyopathies.Eur Heart J. 2005; 26: 1461-1474Crossref PubMed Scopus (641) Google Scholar]. It is currently the gold standard in the evaluation of cardiac masses and thrombi [6Barkhausen J. Hunold P. Eggebrecht H. et al.Detection and characterization of intracardiac thrombi on MR imaging.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002; 179: 1539-1544Crossref PubMed Scopus (141) Google Scholar, 7Sparrow P.J. Kurian J.B. Jones T.R. Sivananthan M.U. MR imaging of cardiac tumors.RadioGraphics. 2005; 25: 1255-1276Crossref PubMed Scopus (252) Google Scholar]. Magnetic resonance angiographic studies can be used in place of contrast-enhanced computed tomography for the evaluation of aortic dissection, coarctation of the aorta, and pulmonary venous studies. In addition, MR angiographic studies are now the preferred imaging modality for the evaluation of renal artery stenosis, suspected mesenteric ischemia, and the workup of lower extremity ischemia [8Binkert C.A. Hoffman U. Leung D.A. Matter H.G. Schmidt M. Debatin J.F. Characterization of renal artery stenoses based on magnetic resonance renal flow and volume measurements.Kidney Int. 1999; 56: 1846-1854Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar, 9Fain S.B. King B.F. Breen J.F. Kruger D.G. Riederer S.J. High-spatial-resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the renal arteries: a prospective comparison with digital subtraction angiography.Radiology. 2001; 218: 481-490Crossref PubMed Scopus (119) Google Scholar, 10Janka R. Fellner C. Wenkel E. Lang W. Bautz W. Fellner F.A. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of peripheral arteries including pedal vessels at 1.0 T: feasibility study with dedicated peripheral angiography coil.Radiology. 2005; 235: 319-326Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar, 11Lapeyre M. Kobeiter H. Desgranges P. Rahmouni A. Becquemin J.P. Luciani A. Assessment of critical limb ischemia in patients with diabetes: comparison of MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 185: 1641-1650Crossref PubMed Scopus (78) Google Scholar, 12Rajagopalan S. Prince M. Magnetic resonance angiographic techniques for the diagnosis of arterial disease.Cardiol Clin. 2002; 20: 501-512Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar]. One misconception is that it takes too long to do an examination. In fact, a standard viability examination can be performed in 30 minutes, and an adenosine stress-rest perfusion study can be performed in 45 minutes [3Klem I. Heitner J.F. Shah D.J. et al.Improved detection of coronary artery disease by stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance with the use of delayed enhancement infarction imaging.J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47: 1630-1638Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (329) Google Scholar]. Another misconception is that cardiac MR studies are not much better than SPECT viability studies. The reality is that they are. Cardiac MR viability imaging is significantly more sensitive than SPECT nuclear imaging for the detection of subendocardial infarctions. A variety of studies have demonstrated that SPECT imaging fails to detect up to 40% of subendocardial infarctions [13Wagner A. Mahrholdt H. Holly T.A. et al.Contrast-enhanced MRI and routine single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging for detection of subendocardial myocardial infarcts: an imaging study.Lancet. 2003; 361: 374-379Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1070) Google Scholar, 14Edelman R.R. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the heart: overview of the literature.Radiology. 2004; 232: 653-668Crossref PubMed Scopus (130) Google Scholar, 15Lee V.S. Resnick D. Tiu S.S. et al.MR imaging evaluation of myocardial viability in the setting of equivocal SPECT results with (99m)Tc sestamibi.Radiology. 2004; 230: 191-197Crossref PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar]. In addition, the question also becomes, whose viability studies? In most areas, nuclear cardiac scans are now performed and interpreted by cardiologists, the exponential growth of which is becoming a focus of government scrutiny and ACR congressional lobbying. However, since MR is superior in image quality, radiologists should offer this service. For cardiac MR training, the guidelines are well defined and have been developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology (ACC). Level 1 training requires 1 month of dedicated exposure, with a minimum of 50 mentored examinations interpreted. Level 2 training requires 3 months, with 50 examinations performed by the examiner and 150 mentored examinations interpreted. Level 3 training requires 1 year of training, with 100 mentored examinations performed and 300 mentored examinations interpreted. A Google search for “CMR training” yielded 1.05 million hits. Again, many of these facilities are at academic centers, with well-respected clinicians. However, choosing a particular facility can be problematic, unless one is intimately familiar with the modality. However, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance’s Web site (http://www.scmr.org) has a comprehensive listing of programs by training duration. That is, the site lists training programs with opportunities for either 1 month, 3 months, or 12 months of training. Unfortunately most site listings do not discuss which equipment is used at the particular facilities, but they do list contact information that can be used to determine this essential information. In addition, the vendors of imaging equipment often have affiliated programs. What should you look for in a cardiac MR training program? Many of the sequence names are vendor specific, and the terminology among vendors can be quite confusing. Therefore, it is advised that trainees find equipment similar to what they own. In addition, trainees should be certain that training facilities will provide them the opportunity to directly perform scans, perhaps on other fellows or normal volunteers. This will ensure that the trainees develop an appreciation for the sequences used, as well as the modifications necessary to adapt to problematic circumstances (eg, modifying a cine sequence as needed to deal with an arrhythmia). Trainees should ensure that facilities have adequate volumes of clinical material (not simply research cases). Many training facilities have dedicated teaching files in place to ensure that trainees receive exposure to the broadest possible array of cases. Last, trainees should be certain that postprocessing instruction at a dedicated workstation is available. In summary, the coronary CTA guidelines for radiologists do not specify duration, simply a case load. Cardiologists have different guidelines. Cardiac MR guidelines are the same between specialties, with level 1 training requiring 4 weeks and 50 mentored examinations. Level 2 training requires 12 weeks and 150 cases seen, with 50 cases interpreted. Level 3 training is a 12-month commitment. The ACR’s position is that credentialing doesn’t have to be specialty specific but rather depend on competence and training. Therefore, close scrutiny should be paid to the training of any individual desiring to be credentialed to perform coronary CTA or cardiac MR. At the present time, there is no consensus between the ACR and its cardiology counterpart, the ACC, regarding appropriate training. As noted in Table 2, the ACR’s guidelines and those of the ACC are significantly different. Specifically, the ACR’s guidelines stipulate a much greater number of overall cases for a nonradiologist (500 CT scans, with 100 being a combination of thoracic and CTA), whereas the ACC’s guidelines mandate a larger number of dedicated cardiac CTA cases (150 cases for level 2, the minimum level that allows independent interpretations). In the great majority of cases, the credentialing ultimately will be decided at the individual hospital and physician levels. Discussion regarding the relative abilities of cardiologists and radiologists to interpret these studies, particularly given the extracardiac findings frequently present, is beyond the scope of this article. An excellent recent article written by David Dowe, MD, [16Dowe D.A. How to win the coronary CTA turf war.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187: 849-851Crossref PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar] that addresses “turf issues” was recently published, and the reader is referred to that article. However, if radiologists do not make immediate efforts to obtain this training, it will become a moot point. In considering referrals, it should be recognized that cardiologists may or may not support the initiative. However, these modalities can be marketed successfully to general internists, surgeons (particularly cardiothoracic and vascular surgeons), and emergency department and family physicians. The marketing of a cardiovascular imaging service in concert with any ongoing hospital initiative is often well received. In particular, if a facility has developed a heart center, or a cardiac surgery program, the cardiovascular imaging service can be marketed as an integral part of the overall initiative. Patient self-referrals may in some instances be desirable, although often consultation with a referring clinician is preferable. In addition, the facility performing cardiovascular imaging should consider establishing a fund to subsidize imaging for patients who are unable to pay. Ensuring that referring physicians see the images of their patients is often a powerful marketing tool. At our facility, images are distributed via the Internet, which has proved quite valuable in marketing the technology. Including images within a report distributed in electronic format is also quite helpful and is supported by many vendors. Currently, Medicare covers coronary CTA for a limited number of indications. At this time, in our area, the major commercial carriers do not cover coronary computed tomography. Medicare and most commercial payers cover cardiac MR for viability assessment, functional analysis, and valvular disorders. Pulmonary vein studies are also covered services. The ACR is actively lobbying for appropriate reimbursement for both cardiac MR and computed tomography. Implicit in this lobbying is that reimbursement should be linked to credentialing guidelines. In summary, these modalities are the wave of the future, and radiologists should be involved. Radiology groups, including academic centers, need to be proactive. The ACR should set aside funds to develop seed programs in cardiovascular training at a variety of academic centers to assist the Manhattan Project initiated by the Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments. Private practice radiology groups must be involved as well, and my suggestion is that larger groups identify 1 or 2 people who are interested in spearheading their cardiac imaging initiatives. Arrangements should be made for these individuals to get the necessary training, with the group’s financial support. During that training, the trainees need to learn how to do the imaging from start to finish. It is often helpful to involve a technologist in this process. Once the training has been obtained, having an overread service as a backup is often very comforting, and maintaining a relationship with the site at which one trained may serve this purpose. The education of fellow radiologists and the sharing of cases will no doubt aid in the dissemination of these technologies. A useful model might be our local angiography club. Formed in the early days of interventional angiography, this club was established by members from competing radiology groups, who would get together to share cases and learn from one another in a collaborative fashion. This would seem an appropriate model for the development of expertise in coronary CTA and in cardiac MR imaging as well." @default.
• W1965108529 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1965108529 creator A5015367003 @default.
• W1965108529 date "2007-06-01" @default.
• W1965108529 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1965108529 title "Establishing a Cardiac Imaging Service" @default.
• W1965108529 cites W1965775731 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W1980233338 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W1986417299 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W1992305402 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W2026173556 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W2046961148 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W2050018784 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W2078860695 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W2133241083 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W2146219480 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W2149518133 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W2150286543 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W2161561297 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W2169010419 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W2170712394 @default.
• W1965108529 cites W2531759999 @default.
• W1965108529 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2006.12.011" @default.
• W1965108529 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17544137" @default.
• W1965108529 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W1965108529 type Work @default.
• W1965108529 sameAs 1965108529 @default.
• W1965108529 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W1965108529 countsByYear W19651085292019 @default.
• W1965108529 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1965108529 hasAuthorship W1965108529A5015367003 @default.
• W1965108529 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1965108529 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W1965108529 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W1965108529 hasConcept C2780378061 @default.
• W1965108529 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1965108529 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1965108529 hasConceptScore W1965108529C144133560 @default.
• W1965108529 hasConceptScore W1965108529C162853370 @default.
• W1965108529 hasConceptScore W1965108529C19527891 @default.
• W1965108529 hasConceptScore W1965108529C2780378061 @default.
• W1965108529 hasConceptScore W1965108529C41008148 @default.
• W1965108529 hasConceptScore W1965108529C71924100 @default.
• W1965108529 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W1965108529 hasLocation W19651085291 @default.
• W1965108529 hasLocation W19651085292 @default.
• W1965108529 hasOpenAccess W1965108529 @default.
• W1965108529 hasPrimaryLocation W19651085291 @default.
• W1965108529 hasRelatedWork W1979439403 @default.
• W1965108529 hasRelatedWork W2124583700 @default.
• W1965108529 hasRelatedWork W2348279676 @default.
• W1965108529 hasRelatedWork W2365604462 @default.
• W1965108529 hasRelatedWork W2372704533 @default.
• W1965108529 hasRelatedWork W2394087853 @default.
• W1965108529 hasRelatedWork W2795433734 @default.
• W1965108529 hasRelatedWork W2889036845 @default.
• W1965108529 hasRelatedWork W3174550866 @default.
• W1965108529 hasRelatedWork W4310230605 @default.
• W1965108529 hasVolume "4" @default.
• W1965108529 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1965108529 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1965108529 magId "1965108529" @default.
• W1965108529 workType "article" @default.