Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27535040›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2016

Off-resonance magnetic resonance angiography improves visualization of in-stent lumen in peripheral nitinol stents compared to conventional T1-weighted acquisitions: an in vitro comparison study.

Gitsios Gitsioudis, Philipp Fortner, Matthias Stuber, Anna Missiou, Florian Andre, Oliver J Müller, Hugo A Katus, Grigorios Korosoglou

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Cardiovascular imaging 2016 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2017
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Gitsios GitsioudisClinic of Internal Medicine, Department of Cardiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. gitsioudis_correspondence@web.de.
Philipp FortnerClinic of Internal Medicine, Department of Cardiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Matthias StuberRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Division of MR Research, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Anna MissiouClinic of Internal Medicine, Department of Cardiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Florian AndreClinic of Internal Medicine, Department of Cardiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Oliver J MüllerClinic of Internal Medicine, Department of Cardiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Hugo A KatusClinic of Internal Medicine, Department of Cardiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Grigorios KorosoglouClinic of Internal Medicine, Department of Cardiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DEJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To compare the value of inversion recovery with on-resonant water suppression (IRON) to conventional T1-weighted (T1w) MRA and computed tomography angiography (CTA) for visualization of peripheral nitinol stents. We visualized 14 different peripheral nitinol stents in vitro both using Gadolinium (Gd) and ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron nanoparticles (USPIOs) for conventional T1w and IRON-MRA using clinical grade 1.5T MR scanner and iodinated contrast material for CTA using a 256-slice CT scanner. Parameter assessment included signal- and contrast-to-noise ratio (S/CNR), relative in-stent signal and artificial lumen narrowing. X-ray angiography served as gold standard for diameter assessment. Gd-enhanced IRON-MRA exhibited highest in-stent SNR and CNR values compared to conventional T1w MRA (IRON (Gd/USPIO): SNR = 30 ± 3/21 ± 2, CNR = 23 ± 2/14 ± 1; T1w: SNR = 16 ± 1/14 ± 2, CNR = 12 ± 1/10 ± 1, all p < 0.05). Furthermore, IRON-MRA achieved highest relative in-stent signal both using Gd and USPIO (IRON (Gd/USPIO): 121 ± 8 %/103 ± 6 %; T1w: 73 ± 2 %/66 ± 4 %; CTA: 84 ± 6 %, all p < 0.05). However, artificial lumen narrowing appeared similar in all imaging protocols (IRON (Gd/USPIO): 21 ± 3 %/21 ± 2 %; T1w: 16 ± 4 %/17 ± 3 %; CTA: 19 ± 2 %, all p = NS). Finally, IRON-MRA provided improvement of the in-stent lumen visualization with an 'open-close-open' design, which revealed a complete in-stent signal loss in T1w MRA. IRON-MRA improves in-stent visualization in vitro compared to conventional T1w MRA and CTA. In light of the in vitro results with Gd-enhanced IRON-MRA, the clinical implementation of such an approach appears promising.

Indexed as

AlloysMultidetector Computed TomographyStentsArtifactsBlood VesselsComputed Tomography AngiographyContrast MediaDextransGadolinium DTPAIohexolMagnetic Resonance AngiographyMagnetite NanoparticlesModels, AnatomicModels, CardiovascularObserver VariationPredictive Value of TestsAlloysContrast MediaDextransferumoxtran-10Gadolinium DTPAIohexoliopromideMagnetite NanoparticlesnitinolComputed tomography angiography (CTA)Inversion recovery with on-resonant water suppression (IRON)Magnetic resonance angiography (MRA)Stent-related artifactsT1-weighted MRA

Identifiers

PMID27535040
OpenAlexW2509800500

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.