ArticlePloS one2014
The role of 1.5 tesla MRI and anesthetic regimen concerning cardiac analysis in mice with cardiomyopathy.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mouse Cardiovascular Imaging.Current protocols · 2024Review
- Article
- Medetomidine/midazolam/fentanyl narcosis alters cardiac autonomic tone leading to conduction disorders and arrhythmias in mice.Lab animal · 2023Article
- Non-invasive assessment of HFpEF in mouse models: current gaps and future directions.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Activation of the MET receptor attenuates doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity in vivo and in vitro.British journal of pharmacology · 2020Article
- Midkine drives cardiac inflammation by promoting neutrophil trafficking and NETosis in myocarditis.The Journal of experimental medicine · 2019Article
- Test-retest reproducibility of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in healthy mice at 7-Tesla: effect of anesthetic procedures.Scientific reports · 2017Article
- Soluble Vascular Cell Adhesion Molecule-1 (VCAM-1) as a Biomarker in the Mouse Model of Experimental Autoimmune Myocarditis (EAM).PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate assessment of left ventricular function in rodent models is essential for the evaluation of new therapeutic approaches for cardiac diseases. In our study, we provide new insights regarding the role of a 1.5 Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device and different anesthetic regimens on data validity. As dedicated small animal MRI and echocardiographic devices are not broadly available, we evaluated whether monitoring cardiac function in small rodents with a clinical 1.5 T MRI device is feasible. On a clinical electrocardiogram (ECG) synchronized 1.5 T MRI scanner we therefore studied cardiac function parameters of mice with chronic virus-induced cardiomyopathy. Thus, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) could be verified compared to healthy controls. However, our results showed a high variability. First, anesthesia with medetomidine, midazolam and fentanyl (MMF) led to depressed cardiac function parameters and more variability than isoflurane gas inhalation anesthesia, especially at high concentrations. Furthermore, calculation of an average ejection fraction value from sequenced scans significantly reduced the variance of the results. To sum up, we introduce the clinical 1.5 T MRI device as a new tool for effective analysis of left ventricular function in mice with cardiomyopathy. Besides, we suggest isoflurane gas inhalation anesthesia at high concentrations for variance reduction and recommend calculation of an average ejection fraction value from multiple sequenced MRI scans to provide valid data and a solid basis for further clinical testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.