ArticleMagnetic resonance in medicine2025
Aortic velocity measurements derived from phase-contrast MRI are influenced by a cardiac implantable electronic device in both adult and pediatric human subjects.
Article in Magnetic resonance in medicine, 2025. 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.
- Deep learning based automated left atrial segmentation and flow quantification of real time phase contrast MRI in patients with atrial fibrillation.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2025Article
- Aortic velocity measurements derived from phase-contrast MRI are influenced by a cardiac implantable electronic device in both adult and pediatric human subjects.Magnetic resonance in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOverall there is a lack of evidence on the accuracy and precision of phase-contrast (PC) MRI in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The purpose of this study is to determine whether aortic velocity measurements are influenced by a CIED.
methodsWe scanned 21 adult patients and 8 pediatric volunteers using clinical standard PC and real-time PC (rt-PC) sequences with and without a CIED generator taped on human subjects (below the left clavicle for adults and children; also on the abdomen for children) to mimic image artifacts. Peak and mean velocities above the aortic valve were calculated.
resultsThe Bland-Altman analyses on peak velocity measurements in pediatric subjects showed that both the accuracy and precision worsen as the distance between the CIED and aortic valve decreases (i.e., from abdomen to below the left clavicle). Specifically, both the bias and the coefficient of variation (CV) for both clinical PC and rt-PC increased from the abdominal position (clinical: bias = -1.1%, CV = 4.3%; rt-PC: bias = -0.3%, CV = 3.4%) to the clavicle position (clinical: bias = -4.0%, CV = 8.1%; rt-PC: bias = 8.2%, CV = 7.3%). A similar trend was observed for mean velocity. The mean difference in peak and mean velocity measurements between rt-PC with CIED (either position) and clinical standard PC with no CIED was within 7.5%. In adult patients, the mean difference between rt-PC with CIED and clinical standard PC with CIED in peak velocity was 6.9%, and the CV was 7.9%.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that aortic velocity measurements are influenced by CIED in both adult and pediatric subjects.
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.