ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2025
Simultaneous measurement of coronary sinus flow and myocardial flow reserve using hybrid
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. 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.
- Article
- The Coronary Venous System in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to investigate the correlation and assess the interchangeability between myocardial flow reserve (MFR) quantified by positron emission tomography (PET) and coronary sinus flow (CSF) reserve measured by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients with ischemic heart disease, utilizing a hybrid PET/MR system.
methodsConsecutive 119 patients (mean 68.5 ± 13.1ys, male 95) who underwent rest-pharmacological stress
resultsRest and stress CSF showed a significant but weak correlation to MBF (r = 0.40, p < 0.0001; r = 0.44, p < 0.0001 for rest and stress, respectively). CSF reserve showed a significant but moderate correlation with MFR (r = 0.43, p < 0.0001) and a weak inverse correlation with SSS (r = - 0.27, p = 0.003). Brand-Altman plots revealed a poor agreement with a proportional error (bias - 0.60 ± 1.34, 95%limit of agreement - 2.02 to 3.21).
conclusionDespite a moderate correlation, CSF reserve and PET-derived MFR demonstrate poor agreement and are not interchangeable. The divergence between these metrics necessitates caution when interpreting global coronary flow reserve derived from CMR in patients with established ischemic heart disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41144174What 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.