ArticleIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
4D Flow
Article in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of free-running whole-heart five-dimensional and four-dimensional flow imaging to standard two-dimensional flow in patients with congenital heart disease.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2026Article
- Performance of respiratory gated 4D flow MRI with adaptive k-space reordering in healthy controls and aortic dissection: reproducibility and agreement with 2D phase contrast MRI.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Article
- Review
- Simulating Subject-Specific Aortic Hemodynamic Effects of Valvular Lesions in Rheumatic Heart Disease.Journal of biomechanical engineering · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare 4D flow magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 2D phase contrast (PC) MRI when evaluating bicuspid (BAV) and tricuspid (TAV) aortic valves. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 83 subjects (35 BAV, 48 TAV) were explored with 4D flow and 2D PC MRI. Systolic peak velocity, peak flow and regurgitation fraction were analysed at two pre-defined aortic levels (aortic root, mid-tubular). Furthermore, the two methods of 4D flow analysis (Heart and Artery) were compared.
resultsCorrelation between the 2D PC MRI and 4D flow MRI derived parameters ranged from moderate (R=0.58) to high (R=0.90). 4D flow MRI yielded significantly higher peak velocities in the tubular aorta in both groups. Regarding the aortic root, peak velocities were significantly higher in the TAV group with 4D flow MRI, but in the BAV group 4D flow MRI yielded non-significantly lower values. Findings on peak flow differences between the two modalities followed the same pattern as the differences in peak velocities. 4D flow MRI derived regurgitation fraction values were lower in both locations in both groups. Interobserver agreement for different 4D flow MRI acquired parameters varied from poor (ICC=0.07) to excellent (ICC=1.0) in the aortic root, and it was excellent in the tubular aorta (ICC=0.8-1.0).
conclusion4D flow MRI seems to be accurate in comparison to 2D PC MRI in normal aortic valves and in BAV with mild to moderate stenosis. However, the varying interobserver reproducibility and impaired accuracy at higher flow velocities should be taken into account in clinical practice when using the 4D flow method.
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.