ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2020
Image quality of late gadolinium enhancement in cardiac magnetic resonance with different doses of contrast material in patients with chronic myocardial infarction.
Article in European radiology experimental, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Rationales for Non-standard GBCA Dosing-Low?-High?-When? and Why?: A Literature-based Study.Investigative radiology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Prognostic Value of Different Thresholds for Myocardial Scar Quantification on Cardiac MRI Late Gadolinium Enhancement Images in Patients Receiving Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2023Article
- Dark-Blood Late Gadolinium Enhancement MRI Is Noninferior to Bright-Blood LGE in Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The predictive role of right ventricular late gadolinium enhancement in patients with tetralogy of Fallot undergoing pulmonary valve replacement.European radiology experimental · 2023Article
- Ablation Lesion Assessment with MRI.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2022Review
- Imaging myocardial ischemia: from emerging techniques to state-of-the-art.European radiology experimental · 2021Article
- Imaging tools for assessment of myocardial fibrosis in humans: the need for greater detail.Biophysical reviews · 2020Review
- ΔR1Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is pivotal for evaluating chronic myocardial infarction (CMI). Concerns about safety of gadolinium-based contrast agents favour dose reduction. We assessed image quality of scar tissue in CMRs performed with different doses of gadobutrol in CMI patients.
methodsInformed consent was waived for this Ethics Committee-approved single-centre retrospective study. Consecutive contrast-enhanced CMRs from CMI patients were retrospectively analysed according to the administered gadobutrol dose (group A, 0.10 mmol/kg; group B, 0.15 mmol/kg; group C, 0.20 mmol/kg). We calculated the signal-to-noise ratio for scar tissue (SNR
resultsOf 79 CMRs from 79 patients, 22 belonged to group A, 26 to group B, and 31 to group C. The groups were homogeneous for age, sex, left ventricular morpho-functional parameters, and percentage of scar tissue over whole myocardium (p ≥ 0.300). SNR
conclusionsGadobutrol at 0.10 mmol/kg provides inferior scar image quality of CMI than 0.15 and 0.20 mmol/kg; the last two dosages seem to provide similar LGE. Thus, for CMR of CMI, 0.15 mmol/kg of gadobutrol can be suggested instead of 0.20 mmol/kg, with no hindrance to scar visualisation. Dose reduction would not impact on diagnostic utility of CMR examinations.
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.