Observational studyThe British journal of radiology2021
Saturation recovery-prepared magnetic resonance angiography for assessment of left atrial and esophageal anatomy.
Observational study in The British journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiomics integrated with machine and deep learning analysis of T2-weighted and arterial-phase T1-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging for non-invasive detection of metastatic axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- Inversion recovery and saturation recovery pulmonary vein MR angiography using an image based navigator fluoro trigger and variable-density 3D cartesian sampling with spiral-like order.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMagnetic resonance angiography (MRA) has been established as an important imaging method in cardiac ablation procedures. In pulmonary vein (PV) isolation procedures, MRA has the potential to minimize the risk of severe complications, such as atrio-esophageal fistula, by providing detailed information on esophageal position relatively to cardiac structures. However, traditional non-gated, first-pass (FP) MRA approaches have several limitations, such as long breath-holds, non-uniform signal intensity throughout the left atrium (LA), and poor esophageal visualization. The aim of this observational study was to validate a respiratory-navigated, ECG-gated (EC), saturation recovery-prepared MRA technique for simultaneous imaging of LA, LA appendage, PVs, esophagus, and adjacent anatomical structures.
methodsBefore PVI, 106 consecutive patients with a history of AF underwent either conventional FP-MRA (
resultsEC-MRA demonstrated significantly better image quality than FP-MRA in every quality category. Esophageal visibility using the new MRA technique was markedly better than with the conventional FP-MRA technique (median 3.5 [IQR 1]
conclusionOur ECG-gated, respiratory-navigated, saturation recovery-prepared MRA technique provides significantly better image quality and esophageal visibility than the established non-gated, breath-holding FP-MRA. Image quality of EC-MRA technique has the additional advantage of being unaffected by heart rate. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Detailed information of cardiac anatomy has the potential to minimize the risk of severe complications and improve success rates in invasive electrophysiological studies. Our novel ECG-gated, respiratory-navigated, saturation recovery-prepared MRA technique provides significantly better image quality of LA and esophageal structures than the traditional first-pass algorithm. This new MRA technique is robust to arrhythmia (tachycardic, irregular heart rates) frequently observed in AF patients.
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.