Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35618870›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular engineering and technology2023

Comparison of Prospective and Retrospective Gated 4D Flow Cardiac MR Image Acquisitions in the Carotid Bifurcation.

Elliott R Hurd, Mengjiao Han, Jason K Mendes, J Rock Hadley, Chris R Johnson, Edward V R DiBella, John N Oshinski, Lucas H Timmins

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular engineering and technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elliott R HurdDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, 36 S. Wasatch Drive, Rm. 3100, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Mengjiao HanSchool of Computing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Jason K MendesDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
J Rock HadleyDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Chris R JohnsonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, 36 S. Wasatch Drive, Rm. 3100, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
Edward V R DiBellaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, 36 S. Wasatch Drive, Rm. 3100, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA.
John N OshinskiDepartment of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Lucas H TimminsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Utah, 36 S. Wasatch Drive, Rm. 3100, Salt Lake City, UT, 84112, USA. lucas.timmins@utah.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8707-8120
University of Utah · USGeorgia Institute of Technology · US

Funding

TRD - VisualizationP41GM103545 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI JOHNSON, CHRISTOPHER R., MACLEOD, ROB S. · 2012 to 2019
$9.7M
Center for Integrative Biomedical Computing Legacy TransitionR24GM136986 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI JOHNSON, CHRISTOPHER R., MACLEOD, ROB S. · 2020 to 2022
$1.6M
Siemens MAGNETOM Prisma 3T MRI scannerS10OD018482 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI PARKER, DENNIS L · 2015 to 2015
$1.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS P41 GM103545NIGMS NIH HHS R24 GM136986NIH HHS S10 OD018482
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the agreement of 4D flow cMRI-derived bulk flow features and fluid (blood) velocities in the carotid bifurcation using prospective and retrospective gating techniques.

methodsProspective and retrospective ECG-gated three-dimensional (3D) cine phase-contrast cardiac MRI with three-direction velocity encoding (i.e., 4D flow cMRI) data were acquired in ten carotid bifurcations from men (n = 3) and women (n = 2) that were cardiovascular disease-free. MRI sequence parameters were held constant across all scans except temporal resolution values differed. Velocity data were extracted from the fluid domain and evaluated across the entire volume or at defined anatomic planes (common, internal, external carotid arteries). Qualitative agreement between gating techniques was performed by visualizing flow streamlines and topographical images, and statistical comparisons between gating techniques were performed across the fluid volume and defined anatomic regions.

resultsAgreement in the kinematic data (e.g., bulk flow features and velocity data) were observed in the prospectively and retrospectively gated acquisitions. Voxel differences in time-averaged, peak systolic, and diastolic-averaged velocity magnitudes between gating techniques across all volunteers were 2.7%, 1.2%, and 6.4%, respectively. No significant differences in velocity magnitudes or components ([Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text]) were observed. Importantly, retrospective acquisitions captured increased retrograde flow in the internal carotid artery (i.e., carotid sinus) compared to prospective acquisitions (10.4 ± 6.3% vs. 4.6 ± 5.3%; [Formula: see text] < 0.05).

conclusionProspective and retrospective ECG-gated 4D flow cMRI acquisitions provide comparable evaluations of fluid velocities, including velocity vector components, in the carotid bifurcation. However, the increased temporal coverage of retrospective acquisitions depicts increased retrograde flow patterns (i.e., disturbed flow) not captured by the prospective gating technique.

Indexed as

Carotid ArteriesMagnetic Resonance ImagingBlood Flow VelocityFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesBiomechanicsCardiac MRIHemodynamicsPhase contrast magnetic resonance imagingTriggering

Identifiers

PMID35618870
OpenAlexW4281561613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.