ArticleEuropean radiology2018
The impact of injector-based contrast agent administration in time-resolved MRA.
Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Acute pulmonary embolism multimodality imaging prior to endovascular therapy.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2021Review
- Update on MR imaging of the pulmonary vasculature.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTime-resolved contrast-enhanced MR angiography (4D-MRA), which allows the simultaneous visualization of the vasculature and blood-flow dynamics, is widely used in clinical routine. In this study, the impact of two different contrast agent injection methods on 4D-MRA was examined in a controlled, standardized setting in an animal model.
methodsSix anesthetized Goettingen minipigs underwent two identical 4D-MRA examinations at 1.5 T in a single session. The contrast agent (0.1 mmol/kg body weight gadobutrol, followed by 20 ml saline) was injected using either manual injection or an automated injection system. A quantitative comparison of vascular signal enhancement and quantitative renal perfusion analyses were performed.
resultsAnalysis of signal enhancement revealed higher peak enhancements and shorter time to peak intervals for the automated injection. Significantly different bolus shapes were found: automated injection resulted in a compact first-pass bolus shape clearly separated from the recirculation while manual injection resulted in a disrupted first-pass bolus with two peaks. In the quantitative perfusion analyses, statistically significant differences in plasma flow values were found between the injection methods.
conclusionsThe results of both qualitative and quantitative 4D-MRA depend on the contrast agent injection method, with automated injection providing more defined bolus shapes and more standardized examination protocols. KEY POINTS: • Automated and manual contrast agent injection result in different bolus shapes in 4D-MRA. • Manual injection results in an undefined and interrupted bolus with two peaks. • Automated injection provides more defined bolus shapes. • Automated injection can lead to more standardized examination protocols.
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.