ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2026
Comparative evaluation of diaphragmatic and myocardial navigation in coronary magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronary magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA) is limited by respiratory motion artifacts, for which diaphragmatic navigation (dNAV) is commonly applied. Myocardial navigation offers a direct motion-tracking alternative, but its performance in different anatomical placements remains underexplored. This study aimed to compare the image quality and clinical feasibility of diaphragmatic and myocardial navigation approaches at 3.0 T. Methods: Thirty-three healthy volunteers underwent CMRA with four navigators: dNAV, left ventricle navigation (LvNAV), right atrial navigation (RaNAV), and apex navigation (ApNAV). Acquisition efficiency, scan duration, success rate, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were analyzed for major coronary segments: right coronary artery (RCA), left anterior descending artery (LAD), and left circumflex artery (LCX). Two observers independently scored image clarity and sharpness (4-point scale) for segments. Interobserver agreement was assessed via intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: LvNAV and RaNAV both achieved a 100% technical completion rate (30/30). This was higher than the technical completion rates for ApNAV (97%, 29/30) and dNAV (90%, 27/30), with the latter two groups experiencing failures due to navigator drift. Scan durations showed no significant differences (dNAV: 478.70±104.68 s; LvNAV: 469.62±102.64 s; P=0.332). LvNAV yielded the highest SNR and CNR (P<0.05). Proximal and mid segments of the RCA, LAD, and LCX showed comparable visualization between dNAV and LvNAV (P>0.05), whereas distal segment visibility was reduced mainly with RaNAV and ApNAV, with dNAV and LvNAV preserving better distal visualization. Coronary visualization rates differed significantly (χ Conclusions: Myocardial navigation, particularly LvNAV, yields superior image quality and visualization performance comparable to dNAV, representing a promising alternative under conditions requiring enhanced motion stability. Personalized navigator selection based on respiratory patterns may further optimize CMRA outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.