ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Quantitative mechanical dyssynchrony in dilated cardiomyopathy measured by deformable registration algorithm.
Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The Prognostic Value of Left Ventricular Mechanical Dyssynchrony Derived from Cardiac MRI in Patients with Idiopathic Dilated Cardiomyopathy.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2021Article
- Cardiomyopathies in China: A 2018-2019 state-of-the-art review.Chronic diseases and translational medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the diagnostic value and reproducibility of deformable registration algorithm (DRA)-derived mechanical dyssynchrony parameters in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) patients.
methodsThe present study included 80 DCM patients (40 with normal QRS duration (NQRS-DCM); 40 with left bundle branch block (LBBB-DCM)) and 20 healthy volunteers. The balanced steady-state free-precession (bSSFP) cine images were acquired using a 3.0T scanner. Mechanical dyssynchrony parameters were calculated based on DRA-derived segmental strain, including uniformity ratio estimate (URE) and standard derivation of time-to-peak (T2Psd) parameters in circumferential, radial, and longitudinal orientations.
resultsDCM patients showed significant mechanical dyssynchrony reflected by both URE and T2Psd parameters compared with controls. Among DCM patients, LBBB-DCM showed decreased CURE (0.78 ± 0.21 vs. 0.93 ± 0.05, p < 0.001) and RURE (0.69 ± 0.14 vs. 0.83 ± 0.15, p = 0.001), and increased T2Psd-Ecc (median with interquartile range, 94.1 (54.4-123.2) ms vs. 63.7 (44.9-80.4) ms, p = 0.003) and T2Psd-Err (91.1 (61.1-103.2) ms vs. 62.3 (46.3-104.5) ms, p = 0.041) compared with NQRS-DCM patients. CURE showed a strong correlation with QRS duration (r = - 0.54, p < 0.001), with maximum AUC (0.791) to differentiate LBBB-DCM from NQRS-DCM patients. Improved intra- and inter-observer reproducibility was found using URE indices (coefficient of variation (CoV), 1.20-3.17%) than T2Psd parameters (CoV, 15.28-41.18%).
conclusionsThe DRA-based CURE showed significant correlation with QRS duration and the highest discriminatory value between LBBB-DCM and NQRS-DCM patients. URE indices showed greater reproducibility compared with T2Psd parameters for assessing myocardial dyssynchrony in DCM patients. KEY POINTS: • The strain analyses based on DRA suggested that DCM patients have varying degrees of mechanical dyssynchrony and there is a significant difference from normal controls. • CURE showed the strongest correlation with QRS duration and was the best parameter for differentiating DCM patients with normal QRS duration from patients with LBBB, and with normal controls. • URE indices showed improved reproducibility compared with T2Psd parameters in all three orientations (circumferential, radial, and longitudinal).
Indexed as
Identifiers
31953665What 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.