ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2020
Impact of baseline calibration on semiquantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion reserve by adenosine stress MRI.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we sought to investigate the impact of baseline calibration, which is used in quantitative cardiac MRI perfusion analysis to correct for surface coil inhomogeneity and noise, on myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI) and its contribution to previously reported paradoxical low MPRI < 1.0 in patients with unobstructed coronary arteries. Semiquantitative perfusion analysis was performed in 20 patients with unobstructed coronary arteries undergoing stress/rest perfusion CMR and in ten patients undergoing paired rest perfusion CMR. The following baseline calibration settings were compared: (1) baseline division, (2) baseline subtraction and (3) no baseline calibration. In uncalibrated analysis, we observed ~ 20% segmental dispersion of signal intensity (SI)-over-time curves. Both baseline subtraction and baseline division reduced relative dispersion of t0-SI (p < 0.001), but only baseline division corrected for dispersion of peak-SI and maximum upslope also (p < 0.001). In the assessment of perfusion indices, however, baseline division resulted in paradoxical low MPRI (1.01 ± 0.23 vs. 1.63 ± 0.38, p < 0.001) and rest perfusion index (RPI 0.54 ± 0.07 vs. 0.94 ± 0.12, p < 0.001), respectively. This was due to a reversed ratio of blood-pool and myocardial baseline-SI before the second perfusion study caused by circulating contrast agent from the first injection. In conclusion, baseline division reliably corrects for inhomogeneity of the surface coil sensitivity profile facilitating comparisons of regional myocardial perfusion during hyperemia or at rest. However, in the assessment of MPRI, baseline division can lead to paradoxical low results (even MPRI < 1.0 in patients with unobstructed coronary arteries) potentially mimicking severely impaired perfusion reserve. Thus, in the assessment of MPRI we propose to waive baseline calibration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31728679What 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.