ArticleJournal of clinical imaging science2014
Blood Pool Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography with Correlation to Digital Subtraction Angiography: A Pictorial Review.
Article in Journal of clinical imaging science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Cerebral Blood Flow Dynamics in Transient Ischemic Attacks Patients with Fast Cine Phase Contrast Magnetic Resonance Angiography.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2020Article
- Blood pool contrast agents for venous magnetic resonance imaging.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2016Review
- Advances in axial imaging of peripheral vascular disease.Current cardiology reports · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) provides noninvasive visualization of the vascular supply of soft tissue masses and vascular pathology, without harmful radiation. This is important for planning an endovascular intervention, and helps to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the treatment. MRA with conventional extracellular contrast agents relies on accurate contrast bolus timing, limiting the imaging window to first-pass arterial phase. The recently introduced blood pool contrast agent (BPCA), gadofosveset trisodium, reversibly binds to human serum albumin, resulting in increased T1 relaxivity and prolonged intravascular retention time, permitting both first-pass and steady-state phase high-resolution imaging. In our practice, high-quality MRA serves as a detailed "roadmap" for the needed endovascular intervention. Cases of aortoiliac occlusive disease, inferior vena cava thrombus, pelvic congestion syndrome, and lower extremity arteriovenous malformation are discussed in this article. MRA was acquired at 1.5 T with an 8-channel phased array coil after intravenous administration of gadofosveset (0.03 mmol/kg body weight), at the first-pass phase. In the steady-state, serial T1-weighted 3D spoiled gradient echo images were obtained with high resolution. All patients underwent digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and endovascular treatment. MRA and DSA findings of vascular anatomy and pathology are discussed and correlated. BPCA-enhanced MRA provides high-quality first-pass and steady-state vascular imaging. This could increase the diagnostic accuracy and create a detailed map for pre-intervention planning. Understanding the pharmacokinetics of BPCA and being familiar with the indications and technique of MRA are important for diagnosis and endovascular intervention.
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.