Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23739813›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2013

Dose response of the intravascular contrast agent gadofosveset trisodium in MR perfusion imaging of the myocardium using a quantitative evaluation.

Sebastian Niedermayer, Steven Sourbron, Maria Prompona, Clemens Cyran, Maximilian Reiser, Armin Huber

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Sebastian NiedermayerInstitut für Klinische Radiologie, Klinikum der LMU, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Steven Sourbron
Maria Prompona
Clemens Cyran
Maximilian Reiser
Armin Huber

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was performed to determine the best concentration of gadofosveset at 1.5 and 3 T MRI for quantitative myocardial perfusion analysis. 18 healthy volunteers have been examined at a 1.5 and a 3 T MRI system assigned to one of three dose groups: low dose (0.00375 mmol/kg), medium dose (0.0075 mmol/kg), high dose (0.0150 mmol/kg). A T1-weighted saturation recovery turboFLASH sequence with parallel imaging was used. Two perfusion scans were performed for each field strength and volunteer. Peak signal-to-noise-ratio, maximum contrast-enhancement-ratio and myocardial blood flow (MBF) were calculated. MBF values were significantly higher at 1.5 T in the medium and the high dose groups than in the low dose group (p < 0.001). Higher MBF values could be found at 3 T for the second perfusion scan in the medium and both perfusion scans in the high dose group compared to the low dose group. Optimal dose of gadofosveset for quantitative perfusion analysis at 1.5 T is 0.00375 mmol/kg as higher doses caused overestimation of the MBF. At 3 T 0.0075 mmol/kg seems to be the best dose for a single perfusion scan, while for a second perfusion scan MBF may be overestimated.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaCoronary CirculationGadoliniumMagnetic Resonance ImagingOrganometallic CompoundsAdultDose-Response Relationship, DrugGermanyHealthy VolunteersHumansMyocardial Perfusion ImagingPredictive Value of TestsSignal-To-Noise RatioYoung AdultContrast Mediagadofosveset trisodiumGadoliniumOrganometallic Compounds

Identifiers

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.