Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31349798›Full record

ArticleBMC medical imaging2019

Quantification of porcine myocardial perfusion with modified dual bolus MRI - a prospective study with a PET reference.

Minna Husso, Mikko J Nissi, Antti Kuivanen, Paavo Halonen, Miikka Tarkia, Jarmo Teuho, Virva Saunavaara, Pauli Vainio, Petri Sipola, Hannu Manninen and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical imaging, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. MRI perfusion in patients with stable chest-pain.The British journal of radiology · 2020
    Review
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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Minna HussoDiagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, PO Box 100, 70029, Kuopio, KYS, Finland. minna.husso@kuh.fi.ORCID 0000-0002-8045-981X
Mikko J NissiDepartment of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Antti KuivanenA.I. Virtanen Institute for Molecule Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Paavo HalonenA.I. Virtanen Institute for Molecule Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Miikka TarkiaTurku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Jarmo TeuhoTurku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Virva SaunavaaraTurku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Pauli VainioDiagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, PO Box 100, 70029, Kuopio, KYS, Finland.
Petri SipolaDiagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, PO Box 100, 70029, Kuopio, KYS, Finland.
Hannu ManninenDiagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, PO Box 100, 70029, Kuopio, KYS, Finland.
Seppo Ylä-HerttualaA.I. Virtanen Institute for Molecule Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, Finland.
Juhani KnuutiTurku PET Centre, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Juha TöyräsDiagnostic Imaging Center, Kuopio University Hospital, PO Box 100, 70029, Kuopio, KYS, Finland.
Kuopio University Hospital · FIUniversity of Eastern Finland · FIUniversity of Turku · FIQueensland University of Technology · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe reliable quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF) with MRI, necessitates the correction of errors in arterial input function (AIF) caused by the T1 saturation effect. The aim of this study was to compare MBF determined by a traditional dual bolus method against a modified dual bolus approach and to evaluate both methods against PET in a porcine model of myocardial ischemia.

methodsLocal myocardial ischemia was induced in five pigs, which were subsequently examined with contrast enhanced MRI (gadoteric acid) and PET (O-15 water). In the determination of MBF, the initial high concentration AIF was corrected using the ratio of low and high contrast AIF areas, normalized according to the corresponding heart rates. MBF was determined from the MRI, during stress and at rest, using the dual bolus and the modified dual bolus methods in 24 segments of the myocardium (total of 240 segments, five pigs in stress and rest). Due to image artifacts and technical problems 53% of the segments had to be rejected from further analyses. These two estimates were later compared against respective rest and stress PET-based MBF measurements.

resultsValues of MBF were determined for 112/240 regions. Correlations for MBF between the modified dual bolus method and PET was r

conclusionsThe modified dual bolus method showed a better agreement with PET than the traditional dual bolus method. The modified dual bolus method was found to be more reliable than the traditional dual bolus method, especially when there was variation in the heart rate. However, the difference between the MBF values estimated with either of the two MRI-based dual-bolus methods and those estimated with the gold-standard PET method were statistically significant.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnimalsContrast MediaDisease Models, AnimalHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMyocardial IschemiaMyocardial Perfusion ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySwineContrast MediaArterial input functionMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)Modified dual bolus methodMyocardial perfusion imagingPositron emission tomography (PET)Quantification

Identifiers

PMID31349798
PMCPMC6660956
OpenAlexW2965748416

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.