ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2016
Non-invasive estimation of pulmonary outflow tract obstruction: A comparative study of cardiovascular phase contrast magnetic resonance and Doppler echocardiography versus cardiac catheterization.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of pulmonary regurgitation on right ventricular size and function in patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot and additional haemodynamic abnormalities.Polish journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Quantification of pulmonary regurgitation and prediction of pulmonary valve replacement by echocardiography in patients with congenital heart defects in comparison to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare estimated pressure gradients from routine follow-up cardiovascular phase-contrast magnetic resonance (PC-MR) with those from Doppler echocardiography and invasive catheterization in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) and pulmonary outflow tract obstruction.
methodsIn 75 patients with pulmonary outflow tract obstruction maximal and mean PC-MR gradients were compared to maximal and mean Doppler gradients. Additionally, in a subgroup of 31 patients maximal and mean PC-MR and Doppler pressure gradients were compared to catheter peak-to-peak pressure gradients (PPG).
resultsMaximal and mean PC-MR gradients underestimated pulmonary outflow tract obstruction as compared to Doppler (max gradient: bias = + 8.4 mm Hg (+ 47.6%), r = 0.89, p < 0.001; mean gradient: + 4.3 mm Hg (+ 49.0%), r = 0.88, p < 0.001). However, in comparison to catheter PPG, maximal PC-MR gradients (bias = + 1.8 mm Hg (+ 8.8%), r = 0.90, p = 0.14) and mean Doppler gradients (bias = - 2.3 mm Hg (- 11.2%), r = 0.87, p = 0.17) revealed best agreement. Mean PC-MR gradients underestimated (bias = - 7.7 mm Hg (- 55.6%), r = 0.90, p < 0.001) while maximal Doppler gradients systematically overestimated catheter PPG (bias = + 13.9 mm Hg (+ 56.5%), r = 0.88, p < 0.001).
conclusionsEstimated maximal PC-MR pressure gradients from routine CHD follow-up agree well with invasively assessed peak-to-peak pressure gradients. Estimated maximal Doppler pressure gradients tend to overestimate, while Doppler mean gradients agree better with catheter PPG. Therefore, our data provide reasonable arguments to either apply maximal PC-MR gradients or mean Doppler gradients to non-invasively evaluate the severity of pulmonary outflow tract obstruction in the follow-up of CHD.
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.