ArticleBMC medical imaging2022
Quantitative evaluation of aortic valve regurgitation in 4D flow cardiac magnetic resonance: at which level should we measure?
Article in BMC medical imaging, 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.
- Aortic Regurgitation: From Valvular to Myocardial Dysfunction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Assessment of the Severity of Aortic Regurgitation by Noninvasive Imaging : Non-invasive MMI for AR.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo find the best level to measure aortic flow for quantification of aortic regurgitation (AR) in 4D flow CMR.
methodsIn 27 congenital heart disease patients with AR (67% male, 31 ± 16 years) two blinded observers measured antegrade, retrograde, net aortic flow volumes and regurgitant fractions at 6 levels in 4D flow: (1) below the aortic valve (AV), (2) at the AV, (3) at the aortic sinus, (4) at the sinotubular junction, (5) at the level of the pulmonary arteries (PA) and (6) below the brachiocephalic trunk. 2D phase contrast (2DPC) sequences were acquired at the level of PA. All patients received prior transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) with AR severity grading according to a recommended multiparametric approach.
resultsAfter assigning 2DPC measurements into AR grading, agreement between TTE AR grading and 2DPC was good (κ = 0.88). In 4D flow, antegrade flow was similar between the six levels (p = 0.87). Net flow was higher at level 1-2 than at levels 3-6 (p < 0.05). Retrograde flow and regurgitant fraction at level 1-2 were lower compared to levels 3-6 (p < 0.05). Reproducibility (inter-reader agreement: ICC 0.993, 95% CI 0.986-0.99; intra-reader agreement: ICC 0.982, 95%CI 0.943-0.994) as well as measurement agreement between 4D flow and 2DPC (ICC 0.994; 95%CI 0.989 - 0.998) was best at the level of PA.
conclusionFor estimating severity of AR in 4D flow, best reproducibility along with best agreement with 2DPC measurements can be expected at the level of PA. Measurements at AV or below AV might underestimate AR.
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.