ArticleEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2024
Repeatability of fully automated, inline quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion in patients with suspected coronary artery disease.
Article in European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Imaging: Where Do We Stand?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Recent developments in the field of myocardial perfusion assessment with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) enable the automated inline quantification of myocardial blood flow (MBF). Previous studies have assessed its repeatability in healthy volunteers. This study assessed the repeatability of this technique in patients with suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods and results: Patients with suspected CAD were studied twice on separate days. CMR perfusion imaging was performed at rest and during adenosine stress using a dual-sequence T1-weighted saturation recovery gradient echo sequence. Inline automatic reconstruction and image post-processing were implemented within the Gadgetron software framework, calculating MBF using a blood tissue exchange model. Repeatability of global stress and rest MBF, and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) were evaluated using Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients. Fifty-four patients (mean age 67 ± 9 years, 78% male) were studied. The median interval between the two scans was 2 days (IQR 3). There was no significant interstudy difference in global stress MBF (1.46 ± 0.51 mL/min/g vs. 1.51 ± 0.59mLmin/g, Conclusion: In patients with suspected CAD, quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion by fully automated inline myocardial mapping shows moderate repeatability for stress and rest MBF, but poorer repeatability with MPR.
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.