ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2025
Evaluation of Real-Time Cardiovascular Flow MRI Using Compressed Sensing in a Phantom and in Patients With Valvular Disease or Arrhythmia.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 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.
- Spin-echo measurements for capillary rheometry at low field.Magnetic resonance letters · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReal-time (RT) phase contrast (PC) flow MRI can potentially be used to measure blood flow in arrhythmic patients. Undersampled RT PC has been combined with online compressed sensing (CS) reconstruction (CS RT) enabling clinical use. However, CS RT flow has not been validated in a clinical setting. PURPOSE: Evaluate CS RT in phantom and patients. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: Flow phantom (60 cycles/min: N = 10, 120 cycles/min: N = 12), sinus rhythm patients, no regurgitation (N = 20) or suspected aortic regurgitation (N = 10), arrhythmia patients (N = 10). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 T, 2D gated PC, CS RT PC, RT cine with arrhythmia rejection. ASSESSMENT: Phantom experiments tested the accuracy of CS RT cardiac output and peak flow rate at 60 and 120 cycles/min against gated PC. For sinus rhythm patients, cardiac output, peak flow rate, and regurgitation fraction in the ascending aorta and/or pulmonary artery were evaluated against gated PC. Cardiac output in patients with arrythmia was evaluated against RT cine with arrhythmia rejection. STATISTICAL TESTS: Bland Altman, correlation, Mann-Whitney test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
resultsCardiac output bias ± SD for CS RT in the phantom was -0.0 ± 0.2 L/min (0.5 ± 3%, P = 0.76) at 60 cycles/min and 0.2 ± 0.3 L/min (4 ± 4%, P = 0.0016) at 120 cycles/min. Correspondingly, peak flow rate bias was -23 ± 6 mL/s (-7 ± 2%, P < 0.0001) and -73 ± 25 mL/s (-23 ± 4%, P < 0.0001). In patients, regurgitant fraction was -4 ± 0.5% (-23 ± 4%, P = 0.0025). Cardiac output bias in patients in sinus rhythm was -0.1 ± 0.5 L/min (-2 ± 10%, P = 0.99) (with regurgitation) and -0.3 ± 0.6 L/min (-5 ± 11%, P = 0.035) (without regurgitation). Peak flow rate bias was -60 ± 31 mL/s (-13 ± 6%, P < 0.0001) (with regurgitation) and -64 ± 32 mL/s (-16 ± 8%, P < 0.0001) (without regurgitation). Cardiac output bias was -0.4 ± 0.6 L/min (-9 ± 11%, P < 0.003) in arrhythmia patients. DATA
conclusionsCS RT flow could potentially serve as a clinical tool for patients with or without valvular disease or arrhythmia, with accurate cardiac output and regurgitation fraction quantification. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Accurate flow assessment is important in clinical evaluation of cardiac patients, but in the presence of irregular heart rhythm flow assessment is challenging. We have evaluated a new method using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and real-time flow for blood flow assessment in cardiac patients. The method was tested against a reference method in a phantom flow model in low and high heart rates, and in cardiac patients with and without irregular heart rhythm and in different vessels. We found the cardiac magnetic resonance imaging real time flow method accurate and therefore promising for clinical implementation. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
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.