ArticleJournal of thoracic imaging2020
Four-dimensional Flow Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quantification of Blood Flow in Bicuspid Aortic Valve.
Article in Journal of thoracic imaging, 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.
- Bicuspid aortic valve morphology and hemodynamics by same-day echocardiography and cardiac MRI.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2022Article
- Clinical implications of the biomechanics of bicuspid aortic valve and bicuspid aortopathy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Aortic and mitral flow quantification using dynamic valve tracking and machine learning: Prospective study assessing static and dynamic plane repeatability, variability and agreement.JRSM cardiovascular diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFour-dimensional (D) flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is limited by time-consuming and nonstandardized data analysis. We aimed to test the efficiency and interobserver reproducibility of a dedicated 4D flow MRI analysis workflow. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty retrospectively identified patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV, age=47.8±11.8 y, 9 male) and 30 healthy controls (age=48.8±12.5 y, 21 male) underwent Aortic 4D flow MRI using 1.5 and 3 T MRI systems. Two independent readers performed 4D flow analysis on a dedicated workstation including preprocessing, aorta segmentation, and placement of four 2D planes throughout the aorta for quantification of net flow, peak velocity, and regurgitant fraction. 3D flow visualization using streamlines was used to grade aortic valve outflow jets and extent of helical flow.
results4D flow analysis workflow time for both observers: 5.0±1.4 minutes per case (range=3 to 10 min). Valve outflow jets and flow derangement was visible in all 30 BAV patients (both observers). Net flow, peak velocity, and regurgitant fraction was significantly elevated in BAV patients compared with controls except for regurgitant fraction in plane 4 (91.1±29.7 vs. 62.6±19.6 mL/s, 37.1% difference; 121.7±49.7 vs. 90.9±26.4 cm/s, 28.9% difference; 9.3±10.1% vs. 2.0±3.4%, 128.0% difference, respectively; P<0.001). Excellent intraclass correlation coefficient agreement for net flow: 0.979, peak velocity: 0.931, and regurgitant fraction: 0.928.
conclusionOur study demonstrates the potential of an efficient data analysis workflow to perform standardized 4D flow MRI processing in under 10 minutes and with good-to-excellent reproducibility for flow and velocity quantification in the thoracic aorta.
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.