Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29271236›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2018

Effects of contrast administration on cardiac MRI volumetric, flow and pulse wave velocity quantification using manual and software-based analysis.

Amir Fathi, Jonathan R Weir-McCall, Allan D Struthers, Brian J Lipworth, Graeme Houston

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Emerging techniques in atherosclerosis imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2019
    Review
  8. Reproducibility of circumferential strain on cine displacement encoding with stimulated echoes magnetic resonance imaging before and after contrast at 3T.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
    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

5 authors.

Amir Fathi1 Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee , Dundee , UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7517-2566
Jonathan R Weir-McCall1 Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee , Dundee , UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5842-842X
Allan D Struthers1 Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee , Dundee , UK.
Brian J Lipworth2 Scottish Centre for Respiratory Research, Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee , Dundee , UK.
Graeme Houston1 Division of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee , Dundee , UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of the current study was to determine the effects of gadolinium contrast agent on right (RV) and left ventricular (LV) volumetric, aortic flow and pulse wave velocity (PWV) quantification using manual, semi-automatic and fully automatic analysis techniques.

methods61 participants free from known cardiovascular disease were recruited. Cardiac MR was performed on a 3 T scanner. A balanced steady-state free precession stack was acquired of the ventricles with phase contrast imaging of the aorta performed pre- and post-administration of 10 ml 0.5 mmol ml

results54 completed the study. Gadolinium-based contrast administration significantly increase the signal-to-noise ratio (pre: 830 ± 398 vs post: 1028 ± 540, p = 0.003) with no significant change in contrast-to-noise ratio (pre: 583 ± 302 vs post: 559 ± 346, p = 0.54). On LV analysis, post-contrast analysis yielded significantly higher end systolic volume (54 ± 20 vs 57 ± 18 ml, p = 0.04), and lower ejection fraction (59 ± 9 vs 57 ± 8%, p = 0.023). On RV analysis, gadolinium contrast resulted in no significant differences. Similar results were seen using the semi-automated and fully-automated techniques but with a larger magnitude of difference. Conversely, using both manual and software analysis aortic flow and PWV quantification proved robust to the effects of contrast agent producing only small non-significant differences.

conclusionGadolinium contrast administration significantly alters LV endocardial contour detection with this effect amplified when using semi-automated analysis techniques. In comparison, RV and PWV analysis is robust to these effects. Advances in knowledge: Contrast administration alters LV quantification but not flow analysis. However, these differences are small.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaCoronary CirculationFemaleHealthy VolunteersHeartHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance Imaging, CineMaleMeglumineMiddle AgedOrganometallic CompoundsPulse Wave AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsSignal-To-Noise RatioSoftwareContrast Mediagadoterate meglumineMeglumineOrganometallic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID29271236
PMCPMC5965987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.