ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2019
Optimizing the Quality of 4D-DSA Temporal Information.
Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experimental study using phantom models of cerebral aneurysms and 4D-DSA to measure blood flow on 3D-color-coded images.Technology and health care : official journal of the European Society for Engineering and Medicine · 2024Article
- 2D versus 3D comparison of angiographic imaging biomarkers using computational fluid dynamics simulations of contrast injections.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2023Article
- Recent progress understanding pathophysiology and genesis of brain AVM-a narrative review.Neurosurgical review · 2021Review
- 4D-DSA: Development and Current Neurovascular Applications.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2021Review
- Interrater Reliability in the Measurement of Flow Characteristics on Color-Coded Quantitative DSA of Brain AVMs.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeQuantification of blood flow using a 4D-DSA would be useful in the diagnosis and treatment of cerebrovascular diseases. A protocol optimizing identification of density variations in the time-density curves of a 4D-DSA has not been defined. Our purpose was to determine the contrast injection protocol most likely to result in the optimal pulsatility signal strength. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo 3D-printed patient-specific models were used and connected to a pulsatile pump and flow system, which delivered 250-260 mL/min to the model. Contrast medium (Isovue, 370 mg I/mL, 75% dilution) was injected through a 6F catheter positioned upstream from the inlet of the model. 4D-DSA acquisitions were performed for the following injection rates: 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 and 3.5 mL/s for 8 seconds. To determine pulsatility, we analyzed the time-density curve at the inlets using the oscillation amplitude and a previously described numeric metric, the sideband ratio. Vascular geometry from 4D-DSA reconstructions was compared with ground truth and micro-CT measurements of the model. Dimensionless numbers that characterize hemodynamics, Reynolds and Craya-Curtet, were calculated for each injection rate.
resultsThe strongest pulsatility signal occurred with the 2.5 mL/s injections. The largest oscillation amplitudes were found with 2.0- and 2.5-mL/s injections. Geometric accuracy was best preserved with injection rates of >1.5 mL/s.
conclusionsAn injection rate of 2.5 mL/s provided the strongest pulsatility signal in the 4D-DSA time-density curve. Geometric accuracy was best preserved with injection rates above 1.5 mL/s. These results may be useful in future in vivo studies of blood flow quantification.
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.