ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2026
Optimization of Respiratory Training Methods for Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn cardiac MRI, poor breath-holding may lead to suboptimal image quality. However, the effect of different breath-hold methods on image quality remains unknown. PURPOSE: To explore the effect of respiratory training with different breath-holding methods and identify the optimal technique for reducing respiratory motion artifacts in cardiac MRI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: A total of 93 patients undergoing cardiac MRI (64 men and 29 women; mean age of 48.9 ± 13.7 years). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: 3T, single-shot fast spin-echo sequence, fast imaging employing steady-state acquisition sequence, first-pass perfusion sequence (fast gradient echo), and late gadolinium enhancement sequence (phase-sensitive myocardial delayed enhancement). ASSESSMENT: All patients undergoing cardiac MRI were divided into three groups: mouth-breathing, nasal-breathing, and nose-clip. Respiratory-gated monitoring diagrams, examination duration, and subjective and objective image quality assessments were compared. STATISTICAL TESTS: One-way ANOVA, Chi-square test, Kruskal-Wallis H test, Kappa test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsEvaluation of the cardiac MRI respiratory-gated monitoring diagrams showed that the probability of good breath-holding in the nose-clip group was 96.7%, significantly higher than in the mouth-breathing (64.5%) and nasal-breathing groups (75.0%). There was no significant difference in examination duration among groups. Myocardial noise in the mouth-breathing group was significantly higher than those in the other two groups (24.2 [18.3, 32.5] vs. 15.8 [12.5, 23.9]/19.2 [13.7, 24.4]); blood pool noise was significantly higher than in the nasal-breathing group (34.6 [22.6, 42.9] vs. 24.9 [18.4, 33.8]). However, CNR did not significantly differ among the three groups (p = 0.07). Subjective image quality scores were higher in the nose-clip group than those in the other two groups (26 [86.7%] versus 16 [51.6%]/18 [56.3%]). DATA
conclusionOptimized respiratory training can enhance breath-holding performance and image quality in patients undergoing cardiac MRI. The use of a nose clip for assisted breath-holding was found to be the most effective method. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 2. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
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.