ArticleOpen heart2024
Validation of 2D flow MRI for helical and vortical flows.
Article in Open heart, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05114785 (PReserved Ejection Fraction Evaluation and Recognition by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
PReserved Ejection Fraction Evaluation and Recognition by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical 4D flow MRI assessment in aortopathy-what the clinician needs to know.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2025Review
- Mechano-electrical-fluid interaction left-ventricle model for numerical evaluation of aortic valve hemodynamics.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Clinical relevance of aortic conduit and reservoir function.Open heart · 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
19 authors at 9 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe main objective of this study was to develop two-dimensional (2D) phase contrast (PC) methods to quantify the helicity and vorticity of blood flow in the aortic root.
methodsThis proof-of-concept study used four-dimensional (4D) flow cardiovascular MR (4D flow CMR) data of five healthy controls, five patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and five patients with aortic stenosis (AS). A PC through-plane generated by 4D flow data was treated as a 2D PC plane and compared with the original 4D flow. Visual assessment of flow vectors was used to assess helicity and vorticity. We quantified flow displacement (FD), systolic flow reversal ratio (sFRR) and rotational angle (RA) using 2D PC.
resultsFor visual vortex flow presence near the inner curvature of the ascending aortic root on 4D flow CMR, sFRR demonstrated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.955, p<0.001. A threshold of >8% for sFRR had a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 100% for visual vortex presence. In addition, the average late systolic FD, a marker of flow eccentricity, also demonstrated an AUC of 0.909, p<0.001 for visual vortex flow. Manual systolic rotational flow angle change (ΔsRA) demonstrated excellent association with semiautomated ΔsRA (r=0.99, 95% CI 0.9907 to 0.999, p<0.001). In reproducibility testing, average systolic FD (FDsavg) showed a minimal bias at 1.28% with a high intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC=0.92). Similarly, sFRR had a minimal bias of 1.14% with an ICC of 0.96. ΔsRA demonstrated an acceptable bias of 5.72°-and an ICC of 0.99.
conclusion2D PC flow imaging can possibly quantify blood flow helicity (ΔRA) and vorticity (FRR). These imaging biomarkers of flow helicity and vorticity demonstrate high reproducibility for clinical adoption. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05114785.
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.