Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35782261›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022

Imaging of the extracranial internal carotid artery in acute ischemic stroke: assessment of stenosis, plaques, and image quality using relaxation-enhanced angiography without contrast and triggering (REACT).

Ulrike Cornelia Isabel Hoyer, Simon Lennartz, Nuran Abdullayev, Florian Fichter, Stephanie T Jünger, Lukas Goertz, Kai Roman Laukamp, Roman Johannes Gertz, Jan-Peter Grunz, Christopher Hohmann and 6 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ulrike Cornelia Isabel HoyerInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Simon LennartzInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Nuran AbdullayevInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Florian FichterInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Stephanie T JüngerDepartment of General Neurosurgery, Center for Neurosurgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Lukas GoertzInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Kai Roman LaukampInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Roman Johannes GertzInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jan-Peter GrunzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany.
Christopher HohmannDepartment III of Internal Medicine, Heart Center, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
David MaintzInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Thorsten PersigehlInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Christoph KabbaschInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jan BorggrefeInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Kilian WeissPhilips GmbH, Hamburg, Germany.
Lenhard PennigInstitute for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
University Hospital Cologne · DEUniversity of Cologne · DEPhilips (Germany) · DEUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: In stroke magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) is the clinical standard to depict extracranial arteries but native MRA techniques are of increased interest to facilitate clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to assess the detection of extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis and plaques as well as the image quality of cervical carotid arteries between a novel flow-independent relaxation-enhanced angiography without contrast and triggering (REACT) sequence and CE-MRA in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods: In this retrospective, single-center study, 105 consecutive patients (65.27±18.74 years, 63 males) were included, who received a standard stroke protocol at 3T in clinical routine including Compressed SENSE (CS) accelerated (factor 4) 3D isotropic REACT (fixed scan time: 02:46 min) and CS accelerated (factor 6) 3D isotropic CE-MRA. Three radiologists independently assessed scans for the presence of extracranial ICA stenosis and plaques (including hyper-/hypointense signal) with concomitant diagnostic confidence using 3-point scales (3= excellent). Vessel quality, artifacts, and image noise of extracranial carotid arteries were subjectively scored on 5-point scales (5= excellent/none). Wilcoxon tests were used for statistical comparison. Results: Considering CE-MRA as the standard of reference, REACT provided a sensitivity of 89.8% and specificity of 95.2% for any and of 93.5% and 95.8% for clinically relevant (≥50%) extracranial ICA stenosis and yielded a to CE-MRA comparable diagnostic confidence [mean ± standard deviation (SD), median (interquartile range): 2.8±0.5, 3 (3-3) Conclusions: Without the use of gadolinium-based contrast agents or triggering, REACT provides a high sensitivity and specificity for extracranial ICA stenosis and a potential improved depiction of adjacent plaques while yielding to CE-MRA comparable vessel quality in a large patient cohort with AIS.

Indexed as

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS)contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA)extracranial arteriesrelaxation-enhanced angiography without contrast and triggering (REACT)

Identifiers

PMID35782261
PMCPMC9246733
OpenAlexW4283834174

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.