Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22527258›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2013

Effect of protocol choice on phase contrast cardiac magnetic resonance flow measurement in the ascending aorta: breath-hold and non-breath-hold.

Michael A Bolen, Randolph M Setser, Ruvin S Gabriel, Rahul D Renapurkar, Yasmeen Tandon, Michael L Lieber, Milind Y Desai, Scott D Flamm

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Cardiovascular imaging 2013 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2014
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael A BolenImaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, J1-4, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. bolenm@ccf.org
Randolph M Setser
Ruvin S Gabriel
Rahul D Renapurkar
Yasmeen Tandon
Michael L Lieber
Milind Y Desai
Scott D Flamm
Cleveland Clinic · USMetroHealth Medical Center · USMiddlemore Hospital · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flow assessment with phase contrast magnetic resonance imaging (PC-MRI) protocols is an important component of a comprehensive cardiovascular MR (CMR) assessment. Breath-hold (BH) and non-breath-hold (NBH) PC-MRI protocols are widely available for this imaging modality. Because flow in the great vessels is known to vary with the respiratory cycle, we hypothesized that these 2 approaches might yield different results in the clinical assessment of forward and regurgitant flow in the ascending aorta. Further, given renewed awareness of the possible effect of velocity offsets in PC-MRI, we also sought to evaluate the impact of BH and NBH protocols on this potential source of error. A prospective observational study was performed in 55 consecutive patients referred for clinical CMR of the thoracic aorta. Both BH and NBH protocols were performed at the sinotubular junction and at the mid ascending aorta. Ten additional patients underwent repeated scanning at the mid ascending aorta with both BH and NBH protocols so that protocol variability could be assessed. Finally, ten patients were scanned with both BH and NBH protocols, and phantoms were then imaged with identical imaging parameters so that offset errors associated with each protocol could be evaluated. Forward flow was generally greater with the NBH protocol than with the BH protocol (mean values 102.1 mL vs. 97.9 mL; P = 0.0004). The Bland-Altman limits of agreement were quite wide for all indices (e.g, forward flow, -26.7 mL, +18.2 mL), which suggests that results from BH and NBH protocols cannot be interchanged with confidence. Estimated phase offset errors were similar for both protocols and were generally within acceptable ranges at the mid ascending level, with slightly higher values observed at the sinotubular junction for the BH technique. We observed differences in flow values with BH and NBH protocols for PC-MRI. This finding is relevant to patients imaged serially for the evaluation of cardiac output or valve (aortic or mitral) insufficiency, for whom adherence to one PC-MRI breathing protocol is likely most effective.

Indexed as

Breath HoldingClinical ProtocolsMagnetic Resonance Imaging, CineAdultAgedAnalysis of VarianceAortaAortic Valve InsufficiencyBlood Flow VelocityCardiac OutputCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance AngiographyMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID22527258
OpenAlexW2028266451

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.