ArticleKorean journal of radiology2022
Feasibility of Single-Shot Whole Thoracic Time-Resolved MR Angiography to Evaluate Patients with Multiple Pulmonary Arteriovenous Malformations.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chronic cyanosis since infancy: Unveiling a giant right pulmonary arteriovenous malformation.Radiology case reports · 2025Article
- The Role of Interventional Radiology in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Arteriovenous Malformations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the feasibility of single-shot whole thoracic time-resolved MR angiography (TR-MRA) to identify the feeding arteries of pulmonary arteriovenous malformations (PAVMs) and reperfusion of the lesion after embolization in patients with multiple PAVMs. MATERIALS AND
methodsNine patients (8 females and 1 male; age range, 23-65 years) with a total of 62 PAVMs who underwent percutaneous embolization for multiple PAVMs and were subsequently followed up using TR-MRA and CT obtained within 6 months from each other were retrospectively reviewed. All imaging analyses were performed by two independent readers blinded to clinical information. The visibility of the feeding arteries on maximum intensity projection (MIP) reconstruction and multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) TR-MRA images was evaluated by comparing them to CT as a reference. The accuracy of TR-MRA for diagnosing reperfusion of the PAVM after embolization was assessed in a subgroup with angiographic confirmation. The reliability between the readers in interpreting the TR-MRA results was analyzed using kappa (κ) statistics.
resultsFeeding arteries were visible on the original MIP images of TR-MRA in 82.3% (51/62) and 85.5% (53/62) of readers 1 and 2, respectively. Using the MPR, the rates increased to 93.5% (58/62) and 95.2% (59/62), respectively (κ = 0.760 and 0.792, respectively). Factors for invisibility were the course of feeding arteries in the anteroposterior plane, proximity to large enhancing vessels, adjacency to the chest wall, pulsation of the heart, and small feeding arteries. Thirty-seven PAVMs in five patients had angiographic confirmation of reperfusion status after embolization (32 occlusions and 5 reperfusions). TR-MRA showed 100% (5/5) sensitivity and 100% (32/32, including three cases in which the feeding arteries were not visible on TR-MRA) specificity for both readers.
conclusionSingle-shot whole thoracic TR-MRA with MPR showed good visibility of the feeding arteries of PAVMs and high accuracy in diagnosing reperfusion after embolization. Single-shot whole thoracic TR-MRA may be a feasible method for the follow-up of patients with multiple PAVMs.
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.