ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2018
Comparison of fast acquisition strategies in whole-heart four-dimensional flow cardiac MR: Two-center, 1.5 Tesla, phantom and in vivo validation study.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03854071 (Development of Novel Physiological CMR Methods in Health and Disease), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Development of Novel Physiological CMR Methods in Health and Disease
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Right Ventricular Diastolic Assessment by 4D Flow CMR.BioMed research international · 2019Pooled it
- Comparison of Echo-Planar Imaging and Compressed Sensing in the Estimation of Flow Metrics from Aortic 4D Flow MR Imaging: A Healthy Volunteer Study.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2025Article
- The Role of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Assessment of Mitral Regurgitation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Deep learning based automated left ventricle segmentation and flow quantification in 4D flow cardiac MRI.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2024Article
- Hemodynamic effects of entry and exit tear size in aortic dissection evaluated with in vitro magnetic resonance imaging and fluid-structure interaction simulation.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Flow evaluation software for four-dimensional flow MRI: a reliability and validation study.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- 4D Flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance consensus statement: 2023 update.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2023Review
- Deep learning-based prediction of intra-cardiac blood flow in long-axis cine magnetic resonance imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2023Article
- Accelerated 4D-flow MRI with 3-point encoding enabled by machine learning.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2023Article
- Quantifying Myocardial Blood Flow and Resistance Using 4D-Flow Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Cardiology research and practice · 2023Article
- Kat-ARC accelerated 4D flow CMR: clinical validation for transvalvular flow and peak velocity assessment.European radiology experimental · 2022Observational
- Whole-Heart 4D Flow MRI for Evaluation of Normal and Regurgitant Valvular Flow: A Quantitative Comparison Between Pseudo-Spiral Sampling and EPI Readout.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2022Article
- Technical Background for 4D Flow MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2022Article
- Why 4D Flow MRI? Real Advantages.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2022Article
- Quality Control for 4D Flow MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2022Article
- Clinical Applications of 4D Flow MR Imaging in Aortic Valvular and Congenital Heart Disease.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2022Review
- Clinical intra-cardiac 4D flow CMR: acquisition, analysis, and clinical applications.European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging · 2022Article
- Non-physiological Aortic Flow and Aortopathy in Adult Patients with Transposition of the Great Arteries after the Jatene Procedure: A Pilot Study Using Echo Planar 4D Flow MRI.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2021Article
- Retrospective Camera-Based Respiratory Gating in Clinical Whole-Heart 4D Flow MRI.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2021Article
- Standard and emerging CMR methods for mitral regurgitation quantification.International journal of cardiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo validate three widely-used acceleration methods in four-dimensional (4D) flow cardiac MR; segmented 4D-spoiled-gradient-echo (4D-SPGR), 4D-echo-planar-imaging (4D-EPI), and 4D-k-t Broad-use Linear Acquisition Speed-up Technique (4D-k-t BLAST). MATERIALS AND
methodsAcceleration methods were investigated in static/pulsatile phantoms and 25 volunteers on 1.5 Tesla MR systems. In phantoms, flow was quantified by 2D phase-contrast (PC), the three 4D flow methods and the time-beaker flow measurements. The later was used as the reference method. Peak velocity and flow assessment was done by means of all sequences. For peak velocity assessment 2D PC was used as the reference method. For flow assessment, consistency between mitral inflow and aortic outflow was investigated for all pulse-sequences. Visual grading of image quality/artifacts was performed on a four-point-scale (0 = no artifacts; 3 = nonevaluable).
resultsFor the pulsatile phantom experiments, the mean error for 2D PC = 1.0 ± 1.1%, 4D-SPGR = 4.9 ± 1.3%, 4D-EPI = 7.6 ± 1.3% and 4D-k-t BLAST = 4.4 ± 1.9%. In vivo, acquisition time was shortest for 4D-EPI (4D-EPI = 8 ± 2 min versus 4D-SPGR = 9 ± 3 min, P < 0.05 and 4D-k-t BLAST = 9 ± 3 min, P = 0.29). 4D-EPI and 4D-k-t BLAST had minimal artifacts, while for 4D-SPGR, 40% of aortic valve/mitral valve (AV/MV) assessments scored 3 (nonevaluable). Peak velocity assessment using 4D-EPI demonstrated best correlation to 2D PC (AV:r = 0.78, P < 0.001; MV:r = 0.71, P < 0.001). Coefficient of variability (CV) for net forward flow (NFF) volume was least for 4D-EPI (7%) (2D PC:11%, 4D-SPGR: 29%, 4D-k-t BLAST: 30%, respectively).
conclusionIn phantom, all 4D flow techniques demonstrated mean error of less than 8%. 4D-EPI demonstrated the least susceptibility to artifacts, good image quality, modest agreement with the current reference standard for peak intra-cardiac velocities and the highest consistency of intra-cardiac flow quantifications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:272-281.
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.