ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2021
Stent interventions for pulmonary artery stenosis improve bi-ventricular flow efficiency in a swine model.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2021. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interaction between the left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular strain and its relationship with coronary stenosis.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- Clinical Application of 4D Flow MR Imaging to Pulmonary Hypertension.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2022Review
- Non-invasive MRI Derived Hemodynamic Simulation to Predict Successful vs. Unsuccessful Catheter Interventions for Branch Pulmonary Artery Stenosis: Proof-of-Concept and Experimental Validation in Swine.Cardiovascular engineering and technology · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBranch pulmonary artery (PA) stenosis (PAS) commonly occurs in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). Prior studies have documented technical success and clinical outcomes of PA stent interventions for PAS but the impact of PA stent interventions on ventricular function is unknown. The objective of this study was to utilize 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to better understand the impact of PAS and PA stenting on ventricular contraction and ventricular flow in a swine model of unilateral branch PA stenosis.
methods18 swine (4 sham, 4 untreated left PAS, 10 PAS stent intervention) underwent right heart catheterization and CMR at 20 weeks age (55 kg). CMR included ventricular strain analysis and 4D flow CMR.
results4D flow CMR measured inefficient right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) flow patterns in the PAS group (RV non-dimensional (n.d.) vorticity: sham 82 ± 47, PAS 120 ± 47; LV n.d. vorticity: sham 57 ± 5, PAS 78 ± 15 p < 0.01) despite the PAS group having normal heart rate, ejection fraction and end-diastolic volume. The intervention group demonstrated increased ejection fraction that resulted in more efficient ventricular flow compared to untreated PAS (RV n.d. vorticity: 59 ± 12 p < 0.01; LV n.d. vorticity: 41 ± 7 p < 0.001).
conclusionThese results describe previously unknown consequences of PAS on ventricular function in an animal model of unilateral PA stenosis and show that PA stent interventions improve ventricular flow efficiency. This study also highlights the sensitivity of 4D flow CMR biomarkers to detect earlier ventricular dysfunction assisting in identification of patients who may benefit from PAS interventions.
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.