ArticleJournal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR2024
Quantitative 2-Dimensionsal Digital Subtraction Venography for Venous Interventions: Validation in Phantom and In Vivo Porcine Models.
Article in Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR, 2024. 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.
- Low Post-Stent Placement Iliofemoral Vein Peak Velocity by Doppler Ultrasound: Prognostic Implication for Re-Intervention in Thrombotic Iliac Vein Lesions.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Article
- Quantification of Iliac Arterial Blood Velocity in Stenotic Phantom and Porcine Models Using Quantitative Digital Subtraction Angiography.Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine the feasibility of using a 2-dimensional quantitative digital subtraction venography (qDSV) technique that employs a temporally modulated contrast medium injection to quantify blood velocity in phantom, normal, and stenotic porcine iliac vein models. MATERIALS AND
methodsBlood velocity was calculated using qDSV following temporally modulated pulsed injections of iodinated contrast medium and compared with Doppler ultrasound (US) measurements (phantom, in-line sensor; in vivo, diagnostic linear probe). Phantom evaluation was performed in a compliant polyethylene tube phantom with simulated venous flow. In vivo evaluation of qDSV was performed in normal (n = 7) and stenotic (n = 3) iliac vein models. Stenoses were created using endovenous radiofrequency ablation, and blood velocities were determined at baseline, after stenosis, after venoplasty, and after stent placement.
resultsIn the phantom model, qDSV-calculated blood velocities (12-50 cm/s) had very strong correlations with US-measured velocities (13-51 cm/s) across a range of baseline blood velocities and injection protocols (slope, 1.01-1.13; R
conclusionsVenous blood velocity was accurately quantified in a venous phantom and in vivo porcine models using qDSV. Intraprocedural changes in porcine iliac vein blood velocity were quantified with qDSV after creation of a stenosis and subsequently treating it with venoplasty and stent placement.
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.