ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2015
Use of a 1.0 Tesla open scanner for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease: a retrospective cohort study.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sustainable low-field cardiovascular magnetic resonance in changing healthcare systems.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2022Review
- Current Use of Pediatric Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Brazil.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Article
- 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 · 2017Review
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using an Open 1.0T MR Platform: A Comparative Study with a 1.5T Tunnel System.Polish journal of radiology · 2017Article
- Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Pediatric Hypertension: A Mini Review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2017Review
- Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2015.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2016Review
- Assessment of Left Ventricular Mass and Hypertrophy by Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Pediatric Hypertension.Journal of clinical hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) · 2016Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOpen cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scanners offer the potential for imaging patients with claustrophobia or large body size, but at a lower 1.0 Tesla magnetic field. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of open CMR for evaluation of pediatric and congenital heart disease.
methodsThis retrospective, cross-sectional study included all patients ≤18 years old or with congenital heart disease who underwent CMR on an open 1.0 Tesla scanner at two centers from 2012-2014. Indications for CMR and clinical questions were extracted from the medical record. Studies were qualitatively graded for image quality and diagnostic utility. In a subset of 25 patients, signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR) ratios were compared to size- and diagnosis-matched patients with CMR on a 1.5 Tesla scanner.
resultsA total of 65 patients (median 17.3 years old, 60% male) were included. Congenital heart disease was present in 32 (50%), with tetralogy of Fallot and bicuspid aortic valve the most common diagnoses. Open CMR was used due to scheduling/equipment issues in 51 (80%), claustrophobia in 7 (11%), and patient size in 3 (5%); 4 patients with claustrophobia had failed CMR on a different scanner, but completed the study on open CMR without sedation. All patients had good or excellent image quality on black blood, phase contrast, magnetic resonance angiography, and late gadolinium enhancement imaging. There was below average image quality in 3/63 (5%) patients with cine images, and 4/15 (27%) patients with coronary artery imaging. SNR and CNR were decreased in cine and magnetic resonance angiography images compared to 1.5 Tesla. The clinical question was answered adequately in all but 2 patients; 1 patient with a Fontan had artifact from an embolization coil limiting RV volume analysis, and in 1 patient the right coronary artery origin was not well seen.
conclusionsOpen 1.0 Tesla scanners can effectively evaluate pediatric and congenital heart disease, including patients with claustrophobia and larger body size. Despite minor artifacts and differences in SNR and CNR, the majority of clinical questions can be answered adequately, with some limitations with coronary artery imaging. Further evaluation is necessary to optimize protocols and image quality.
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.