ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2010
Myocardial perfusion SPECT identifies patients with left bundle branch block patterns at high risk for future coronary events.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- QRS Fragmentation in Preserved Ejection Fraction Heart Failure: Functional Insights, Pathological Correlates, and Prognosis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Article
- Negative predictive value of SPECT for the occurrence of MACE in a medium-sized clinic in the Netherlands.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2014Article
- Predictive variables for hard cardiac events and coronary revascularization in patients with normal left ventricular myocardial perfusion and systolic function.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2013Article
- Patients with left bundle branch block pattern and high cardiac risk myocardial SPECT: does the current management suffice?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe value of myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) for patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing seems reduced. The prognosis of patients with only abnormal activation related perfusion defects (AARD) due to LBBB or RVA-pacing is similar to those with a normal MPS. We assessed the prognostic value of MPS in patients with LBBB or RVA pacing.
methodsPatients with LBBB or RVA pacing referred for vasodilator stress MPS between April 2002 and January 2006 were analyzed. Group 1 are patients with normal MPS and MPS with AARD. Group 2 are patients with an MPS with a perfusion defect extending outside the AARD area. Events were cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization.
resultsIn Group 1 (101 patients) 12 events and in Group 2 (96 patients) 45 events occurred during a mean follow-up of 2.6 +/- 1.5 years. The prognosis of Group 2 was significantly worse (49%) compared with Group 1 (91%). The annual cardiac death rate was 0.7%/year in Group 1 and 6.4%/year in Group 2 (P < .001). The prognosis of patients with LBBB was not different from those with RVA pacing.
conclusionGroup 2 had a significantly worse cardiac prognosis compared to Group 1. The annual cardiac death rate of <1% in Group 1 warrants a watchful waiting strategy, whereas the cardiac death rate in Group 2 warrants aggressive invasive coronary strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20033856What 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.