SynthesisEuropean radiology experimental2026
CT-derived myocardial extracellular volume: current evidence, clinical utility, and the emerging role of photon-counting CT-a systematic review.
Synthesis in European radiology experimental, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCardiac extracellular volume (ECV) is a quantitative imaging biomarker of myocardial interstitial expansion and diffuse fibrosis, with cardiac magnetic resonance regarded as the reference standard method for assessment. Interest in computed tomography (CT)-derived cardiac ECV is increasing owing to its wide availability and potential integration into routine cardiac CT examinations. This systematic review was conducted within the framework of the European Network for the Assessment of Imaging in Medicine (EuroAIM). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis PRISMA-compliant systematic review searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, with the last search performed in December 2025. Extracted data included study design, target pathology, CT technology, acquisition approach, timing of delayed imaging, hematocrit estimation, region-of-interest methodology, type of comparator, and reporting and definition of ECV cutoff values. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
resultsOf 304 unique records, 113 studies were included, with a marked increase in publications over the last 3 years (30 studies in 2025). Studies covered a broad range of clinical settings, including aortic stenosis, amyloidosis, heart failure, cardiomyopathies, myocarditis, and cardio-oncology. Sixty-seven studies were retrospective, and forty-six were prospective. ECV was assessed using single-energy CT (n = 65), dual-energy CT (n = 34), and photon-counting CT (n = 14, 10 of them in 2025). Cutoff values were reported in only 38 studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score was 6.33 ± 1.42 (mean ± standard deviation).
conclusionCardiac ECV is rapidly expanding, with photon-counting CT emerging as a promising platform. Nevertheless, substantial methodological heterogeneity and inconsistent cutoff reporting persist, highlighting the need for standardized protocols and harmonized reporting. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251147762. KEY POINTS: Question What evidence is available in the literature about photon-counting CT-derived myocardial ECV quantification? Findings CT-derived myocardial ECV enables noninvasive assessment of diffuse myocardial fibrosis across multiple cardiovascular diseases. Relevance statement The rapidly expanding evidence and the emergence of photon-counting CT highlight its potential integration into routine cardiac CT imaging. Evidence spans multiple cardiac and systemic disease categories; heterogeneous methods limit cross-study comparability; standardized reporting is needed for clinical translation.
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.