ArticleMagnetic resonance imaging2020
Validation of non-contrast multiple overlapping thin-slab 4D-flow cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Magnetic resonance 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.
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Images Superresolution via Multichannel Residual Attention Networks.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021Article
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
backgroundCardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) flow quantification is typically performed using 2D phase-contrast (PC) imaging of a plane perpendicular to flow. 3D-PC imaging (4D-flow) allows offline quantification anywhere in a thick slab, but is often limited by suboptimal signal, potentially alleviated by contrast enhancement. We developed a non-contrast 4D-flow sequence, which acquires multiple overlapping thin slabs (MOTS) to minimize signal loss, and hypothesized that it could improve image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and aortic flow measurements compared to non-contrast single-slab approach.
methodsWe prospectively studied 20 patients referred for transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), who underwent CMR (GE, 3 T). 2D-PC images of the aortic valve and three 4D-flow datasets covering the heart were acquired, including single-slab, pre- and post-contrast, and non-contrast MOTS. Each 4D-flow dataset was interpreted blindly for ≥moderate valve disease and compared to TEE. Flow visualization through each valve was scored (0 to 4), and aortic-valve flow measured on each 4D-flow dataset and compared to 2D-PC reference.
resultsDiagnostic quality visualization was achieved with the pre- and post-contrast 4D-flow acquisitions in 25% and 100% valves, respectively (scores 0.9 ± 1.1 and 3.8 ± 0.5), and in 58% with the non-contrast MOTS (1.6 ± 1.1). Accuracy of detection of valve disease was 75%, 92% and 82%, respectively. Aortic flow measurements were possible in 53%, 95% and in 89% patients, respectively. The correlation between pre-contrast single-slab measurements and 2D-PC reference was weak (r = 0.21), but improved with both contrast enhancement (r = 0.71) and with MOTS (r = 0.67).
conclusionsAlthough non-contrast MOTS 4D-flow improves valve function visualization and diagnostic accuracy, a significant proportion of valves cannot be accurately assessed. However, aortic flow measurements using non-contrast MOTS is feasible and reaches similar accuracy to that of contrast-enhanced 4D-flow.
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.