ArticleEuropean radiology2025
4D flow MRI-based grading of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction: a validation study against echocardiography.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comprehensive CMR evaluation including 4D flow-derived E/A vorticity ratio in overweight adults with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2025Trial
- Evaluating biventricular diastolic function using cardiovascular magnetic resonance 4d-flow derived E/e'.European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the intraventricular hemodynamics of patients with left ventricular dysfunction via vector flow mapping.Frontiers in cardiovascular 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the feasibility and accuracy of 4D flow MRI-based grading of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, using echocardiography as the reference method.
methodsBetween October 2016 and February 2022, subjects were prospectively recruited for transthoracic echocardiographic evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function and 4D flow MRI at 3 T. Echocardiographic grading of diastolic dysfunction was performed according to the multiparametric, threshold-based 2016 ASE/EACVI approach. Volumetric and echo-equivalent peak velocity grading parameters were evaluated from 4D flow magnitude and velocity data, respectively. Duration of vortical blood flow along the main pulmonary artery (t
resultsThe study population consisted of 94 participants (mean age, 62 ± 12 years, 50 females, 34 with structural heart disease). All volumetric and echo-equivalent 4D flow grading parameters demonstrated strong to very strong correlations with echocardiography (r = 0.75-0.92). Volumetric parameters showed significant biases between 4D flow and echocardiography. Employing bias-adjusted 4D flow grading cutoffs for volumetric parameter, echo-equivalent cutoffs for diastolic transmitral and myocardial peak velocities, and t
conclusionGrading of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction from a single 4D flow measurement is feasible and shows nearly perfect agreement with echocardiography. KEY POINTS: Question The lack of comparison studies with echocardiography currently limits cardiac MRI-based grading of diastolic dysfunction. Could 4D flow MRI serve as a viable technique? Findings A single 4D flow MRI measurement allows multiparametric grading of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction in nearly perfect agreement with echocardiography. Clinical relevance Agreement between 4D flow MRI and echocardiographic grading of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction is comparable to that observed in repeated echocardiographic evaluations, suggesting 4D flow as a viable alternative to echocardiography in selected patients, especially when comprehensive MRI is already performed.
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.