Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25630861›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2015

Quantification of myocardial blood flow with cardiovascular magnetic resonance throughout the cardiac cycle.

Manish Motwani, Ananth Kidambi, Akhlaque Uddin, Steven Sourbron, John P Greenwood, Sven Plein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Cardiac Phase-Resolved TBiomedicines · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Impact of the Choice of Native TJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) 2015-2016 and transition of the JCMR office to Boston.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2017
    Review
  11. Analysis of spatiotemporal fidelity in quantitative 3D first-pass perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2017
    Article
  12. Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2015.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2016
    Review
  13. Interstudy repeatability of self-gated quantitative myocardial perfusion MRI.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2016
    Article
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.

Manish Motwani
Ananth Kidambi
Akhlaque Uddin
Steven Sourbron
John P Greenwood
Sven PleinLeeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, Division of Biomedical Imaging, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. S.Plein@leeds.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMyocardial blood flow (MBF) varies throughout the cardiac cycle in response to phasic changes in myocardial tension. The aim of this study was to determine if quantitative myocardial perfusion imaging with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) can accurately track physiological variations in MBF throughout the cardiac cycle.

methods30 healthy volunteers underwent a single stress/rest perfusion CMR study with data acquisition at 5 different time points in the cardiac cycle (early-systole, mid-systole, end-systole, early-diastole and end-diastole). MBF was estimated on a per-subject basis by Fermi-constrained deconvolution. Interval variations in MBF between successive time points were expressed as percentage change. Maximal cyclic variation (MCV) was calculated as the percentage difference between maximum and minimum MBF values in a cardiac cycle.

resultsAt stress, there was significant variation in MBF across the cardiac cycle with successive reductions in MBF from end-diastole to early-, mid- and end-systole, and an increase from early- to end-diastole (end-diastole: 4.50 ± 0.91 vs. early-systole: 4.03 ± 0.76 vs. mid-systole: 3.68 ± 0.67 vs. end-systole 3.31 ± 0.70 vs. early-diastole: 4.11 ± 0.83 ml/g/min; all p values <0.0001). In all cases, the maximum and minimum stress MBF values occurred at end-diastole and end-systole respectively (mean MCV = 26 ± 5%). There was a strong negative correlation between MCV and peak heart rate at stress (r = -0.88, p < 0.001). The largest interval variation in stress MBF occurred between end-systole and early-diastole (24 ± 9% increase). At rest, there was no significant cyclic variation in MBF (end-diastole: 1.24 ± 0.19 vs. early-systole: 1.28 ± 0.17 vs.mid-systole: 1.28 ± 0.17 vs. end-systole: 1.27 ± 0.19 vs. early-diastole: 1.29 ± 0.19 ml/g/min; p = 0.71).

conclusionQuantitative perfusion CMR can be used to non-invasively assess cyclic variations in MBF throughout the cardiac cycle. In this study, estimates of stress MBF followed the expected physiological trend, peaking at end-diastole and falling steadily through to end-systole. This technique may be useful in future pathophysiological studies of coronary blood flow and microvascular function.

Indexed as

Coronary CirculationMagnetic Resonance Imaging, CineMyocardial ContractionFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMaleMyocardial Perfusion ImagingYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25630861
PMCPMC4308908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.