2022
DOI: 10.1002/rco2.62
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Computed tomography measured tissue density of pectoral muscle and liver predicts outcomes in heart transplant recipients

Abstract: Background Computed tomography (CT)‐derived measures of tissue quality can add to frailty assessment and improve selection of candidates for heart transplant. We investigated the prognostic value of CT measures of tissue density for predicting hospital length of stay (LOS) and mortality post‐transplant. Methods All patients at a quaternary care hospital between 1999 to 2018 with preheart transplant CT scans and available data on transplant outcomes were eligible (n = 189), including a subset within the total c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

2
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly, inter‐rater and intra‐rater variability may be present when analysing muscle, although minimal. Inter‐rater and intra‐rater correlation coefficients from CT muscle measurements range from 0.97 to 0.99 and from 0.95 to 0.99, respectively ( P < 0.0001), 50 and a Bland–Altman analysis between the two most popular CT muscle measurement programs (Slice‐O‐Matic and OsiriX) shows excellent agreement (≥0.954, P < 0.001) 51 . It may be impossible to account for all sources of variation in CT muscle analysis, but our goal in this review was (and the goal of future research should be) to identify the most egregious sources and account for them.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Similarly, inter‐rater and intra‐rater variability may be present when analysing muscle, although minimal. Inter‐rater and intra‐rater correlation coefficients from CT muscle measurements range from 0.97 to 0.99 and from 0.95 to 0.99, respectively ( P < 0.0001), 50 and a Bland–Altman analysis between the two most popular CT muscle measurement programs (Slice‐O‐Matic and OsiriX) shows excellent agreement (≥0.954, P < 0.001) 51 . It may be impossible to account for all sources of variation in CT muscle analysis, but our goal in this review was (and the goal of future research should be) to identify the most egregious sources and account for them.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…12,13 Using CT muscle density as a surrogate of muscle quality is advantageous for several reasons: it is objective, independent of patient volition, and accessible to all patients who receive a CT scan, regardless of their cognitive, mobility, or conscious status. Muscle density is also predictive of survival in many clinical populations, including heart failure, 21,22 cancer, 3,23,24 COVID-19, 25 and many others. 2,[26][27][28][29][30] Before CT muscle density can be Each correction was applied to arterial data (middle column), venous data, (right column), or both.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%