ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Feasibility of one breath-hold cardiovascular magnetic resonance compressed sensing cine for left ventricular strain analysis.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison between compressed sensing and segmented cine cardiac magnetic resonance: a meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Pooled it
- The effects of flip angle and gadolinium contrast agent on single breath-hold compressed sensing cardiac magnetic resonance cine for biventricular global strain assessment.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the feasibility of 3D left ventricular global and regional strain by using one breath-hold (BH) compressed sensing cine (CSC) protocol and determine the agreement between CSC and conventional cine (CC) protocols. Methods: A total of 30 volunteers were enrolled in this study. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) images were acquired using a 1.436 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system. The CSC protocols included one BH CSC and the shortest BH CSC protocols with different parameters and were only performed in short-axis (SA) view following CC protocols. Left ventricular (LV) end-diastole volume (EDV), end-systole volume (ESV), stroke volume (SV), and ejection fraction (EF) global and regional strain were calculated by CC, one BH CSC, and shortest BH CSC protocols. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and coefficient of variance (CV) of these parameters were used to determine the agreement between different acquisitions. Results: The agreement of all volumetric variables and EF between the CC protocol and one BH CSC protocol was excellent (ICC > 0.9). EDV, ESV, and SV between CC and shortest BH CSC protocols also had a remarkable coherence (ICC > 0.9). The agreement of 3D LV global strain assessment between CC protocol and one BH CSC protocol was good (ICC > 0.8). Most CVs of variables were also good (CV < 15%). ICCs of all variables were lower than 0.8. CVs of all parameters were higher than 15% except global longitudinal strain (GLS) between CC and shortest BH CSC protocols. The agreement of regional strain between CC and BH CSC protocols was heterogeneous (-0.2 < ICC < 0.7). Many variables of CVs were poor. Conclusion: Notably, one BH CSC protocol can be used for 3D global strain analysis, along with a good correlation with the CC protocol. The regional strain should continue to be computed by the CC protocol due to poor agreement and a remarkable variation between the protocols. The shortest BH CSC protocol was insufficient to replace the CC protocol for 3D global and regional strain.
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.