ArticleBMC medical imaging2020
Doppler ultrasound cardiac gating of intracranial flow at 7T.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUltra-high field magnetic resonance imaging (MR) may be used to improve intracranial blood flow measurements. However, standard cardiac synchronization methods tend to fail at ultra-high field MR. Therefore, this study aims to investigate an alternative synchronization technique using Doppler ultrasound.
methodsHealthy subjects (n = 9) were examined with 7T MR. Flow was measured in the M1-branch of the middle cerebral artery (MCA) and in the cerebral aqueduct (CA) using through-plane phase contrast (2D flow). Flow in the circle of Willis was measured with three-dimensional, three-directional phase contrast (4D flow). Scans were gated with Doppler ultrasound (DUS) and electrocardiogram (ECG), and pulse oximetry data (POX) was collected simultaneously. False negative and false positive trigger events were counted for ECG, DUS and POX, and quantitative flow measures were compared.
resultsThere were fewer false positive triggers for DUS compared to ECG (5.3 ± 11 vs. 25 ± 31, p = 0.031), while no other measured parameters differed significantly. Net blood flow in M1 was similar between DUS and ECG for 2D flow (1.5 ± 0.39 vs. 1.6 ± 0.41, bias ± 1.96SD: - 0.021 ± 0.36) and 4D flow (1.8 ± 0.48 vs. 9 ± 0.59, bias ± 1.96SD: - 0.086 ± 0.57 ml). Net CSF flow per heart beat in the CA was also similar for DUS and ECG (3.6 ± 2.1 vs. 3.0 ± 5.8, bias ± 1.96SD: 0.61 ± 13.6 μl).
conclusionGating with DUS produced fewer false trigger events than using ECG, with similar quantitative flow values. DUS gating is a promising technique for cardiac synchronization at 7T.
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.