ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2025
Robustness of 4D flow MRI derived aortic wall shear stress and pulse wave velocity across different protocols in healthy controls and in patients with bicuspid aortic valve.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the reproducibility of important biomarkers like wall shear stress (WSS), pulse wave velocity (PWV), and net flow across two 4D flow MRI imaging protocols with different coverages: aorta-targeted 4D flow MRI (AT4D) and whole-heart 4D flow (WH4D) protocols.
methodsThirty-eight control subjects (43.2 ± 10.1 years old; 22 males) and ten patients (45.7 ± 8.9 years old; 7 males) with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) were included. Each subject underwent AT4D and WH4D scans. Absolute WSS, PWV, and net flow were assessed for each patient across both protocols and compared using Bland-Altman analysis. Areas of elevated WSS were assessed for BAV patients across different WSS thresholds that define WSS to be elevated compared to a normal population average. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the best WSS threshold at which WH4D-derived areas most closely resemble AT4D-derived areas. Inter-rater reproducibility was evaluated in twenty-four subjects.
resultsAT4D and WH4D PWV and WSS estimates demonstrated good agreement (PWV: -0.12 ± 1.84 m/s, p = 0.4; Median WSS: 0.06 ± 0.13 Pa, p < 0.01; Maximum WSS: 0.04 ± 0.27 Pa, p = 0.07). Good agreement was also found for AAo net flow (8.14 ± 24.86 mL/cycle, p < 0.01). PWV correlated with age across protocols (AT4D: r = 0.68, p < 0.01; WH4D: r = 0.72, p < 0.01). Sensitivity analysis identified a WSS threshold where WH4D-derived areas of elevated WSS most closely resembled AT4D-derived areas. Inter-rater assessment of the tested parameters resulted in a small mean difference percentage of < 3%. DATA
conclusionPWV, WSS, and net flow demonstrated good agreement across protocols. The WSS threshold should be adjusted for WH4D estimates to optimally match AT4D-derived output. Reproducibility analysis showed good test-retest agreement. This study demonstrates the reproducibility of certain hemodynamic parameters across two 4D flow MRI protocol.
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.