ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2021
Peak flow measurements in patients with severe aortic stenosis: a prospective comparative study between cardiovascular magnetic resonance 2D and 4D flow and transthoracic echocardiography.
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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance reference values ("normal values") in cardiovascular magnetic resonance: 2025 update.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2025Guideline
- CMR T1 and T2 mapping and extracellular volume quantification in systolic phase produces superior image quality with less motion artifacts and equal mapping values compared to conventional diastolic mapping.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- Impact of coronary artery disease on systolic function in severe aortic stenosis-a multimodality imaging study.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2026Article
- Review
- Moderate Aortic Stenosis-Advanced Imaging, Risk Assessment, and Treatment Strategies.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2024Review
- Is there a role for cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of biological aortic valves?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- The role of 4-dimensional flow in the assessment of bicuspid aortic valve and its valvulo-aortopathies.The British journal of radiology · 2022Review
- Kat-ARC accelerated 4D flow CMR: clinical validation for transvalvular flow and peak velocity assessment.European radiology experimental · 2022Observational
- Validation of aortic valve pressure gradient quantification using semi-automated 4D flow CMR pipeline.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- 4D FlowIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most prevalent valvular disease in the developed countries. Four-dimensional (4D) flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is an emerging imaging technique, which has been suggested to improve the evaluation of AS severity compared to two-dimensional (2D) flow and transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). We investigated the reliability of CMR 2D flow and 4D flow techniques in measuring aortic transvalvular peak systolic flow in patients with severe AS.
methodsWe prospectively recruited 90 patients referred for aortic valve replacement due to severe AS (73.3 ± 11.3 years, aortic valve area 0.7 ± 0.1 cm
results4D flow underestimated peak flow velocity in the AS group when compared with TTE (bias - 1.1 m/s, limits of agreement ± 1.4 m/s) and 2D flow (bias - 1.2 m/s, limits of agreement ± 1.6 m/s). The differences between values obtained by TTE (median 4.3 m/s, range 2.7-6.1 m/s) and 2D flow (median 4.5 m/s, range 2.9-6.5 m/s) compared to 4D flow (median 3.1 m/s, range 1.7-5.1 m/s) were significant (p < 0.001). The difference between 2D flow and TTE were insignificant (bias 0.07 m/s, limits of agreement ± 1.5 m/s). In non-valvular disease controls, peak flow velocity was measured higher by 4D flow than 2D flow (1.4 m/s, 1.1-1.7 m/s and 1.3 m/s, 1.1-1.5 m/s, respectively; bias 0.2 m/s, limits of agreement ± 0.16 m/s).
conclusionsCMR 4D flow significantly underestimates systolic peak flow velocity in patients with severe AS. 2D flow, in turn, estimated the AS velocity accurately, with measured peak flow velocities comparable to TTE.
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.