Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30284642›Full record

ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2019

Low CT temporal sampling rates result in a substantial underestimation of myocardial blood flow measurements.

Marly van Assen, Gert Jan Pelgrim, Emmy Slager, Sjoerd van Tuijl, U Joseph Schoepf, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart, Matthijs Oudkerk

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Cardiovascular imaging 2019 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2020
    Article
  12. Imaging of coronary flow capacity: is there a role for dynamic CT perfusion imaging?European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2019
    Article
  13. Cardiovascular imaging 2018 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019
    Article
  14. 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

7 authors.

Marly van AssenCenter for Medical Imaging-North East Netherlands, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, EB44, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Gert Jan PelgrimCenter for Medical Imaging-North East Netherlands, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, EB44, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Emmy SlagerCenter for Medical Imaging-North East Netherlands, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, EB44, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Sjoerd van TuijlLifeTec Group BV, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
U Joseph SchoepfMedical University South Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA.
Rozemarijn VliegenthartDepartment of Radiology, Center for Medical Imaging-North East Netherlands, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Matthijs OudkerkCenter for Medical Imaging-North East Netherlands, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, EB44, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands. m.oudkerk@umcg.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of temporal sampling rate in dynamic CT myocardial perfusion imaging (CTMPI) on myocardial blood flow (MBF). Dynamic perfusion CT underestimates myocardial blood flow compared to PET and SPECT values. For accurate quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion with dynamic perfusion CT a stable calibrated HU measurement of MBF is essential. Three porcine hearts were perfused using an ex-vivo Langendorff model. Hemodynamic parameters were monitored. Dynamic CTMPI was performed using third generation dual source CT at 70 kVp and 230-350 mAs/rot in electrocardiography(ECG)-triggered shuttle-mode (sampling rate, 1 acquisition every 2-3 s; z-range, 10.2 cm), ECG-triggered non-shuttle mode (fixed table position) with stationary tube rotation (1 acquisition every 0.5-1 s, 5.8 cm), and non-ECG-triggered continuous mode (1 acquisition every 0.06 s, 5.8 cm). Stenosis was created in the circumflex artery, inducing different fractional flow reserve values. Volume perfusion CT Myocardium software was used to analyze ECG-triggered scans. For the non-ECG triggered scans MASS research version was used combined with an in-house Matlab script. MBF (mL/g/min) was calculated for non-ischemic segments. True MBF was calculated using input flow and heart weight. Significant differences in MBF between shuttle, non-shuttle and continuous mode were found, with median MBF of 0.87 [interquartile range 0.72-1.00], 1.20 (1.07-1.30) and 1.65 (1.40-1.88), respectively. The median MBF in shuttle mode was 56% lower than the true MBF. In non-shuttle and continuous mode, the underestimation was 41% and 18%. Limited temporal sampling rate in standard dynamic CTMPI techniques contributes to substantial underestimation of true MBF.

Indexed as

Computed Tomography AngiographyFractional Flow Reserve, MyocardialAnimalsBlood Flow VelocityCardiac-Gated Imaging TechniquesCoronary StenosisDisease Models, AnimalElectrocardiographyIsolated Heart PreparationMyocardial Perfusion ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyPredictive Value of TestsProof of Concept StudyReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness IndexSus scrofaCardiac imaging techniquesComputed tomographyPerfusion imaging

Identifiers

PMID30284642
PMCPMC6454077

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.