ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2010
Impact of preoperative positron emission tomography in patients with severely impaired LV-function undergoing surgical revascularization.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the prognostic value of positron-emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging using automated software to calculate perfusion defect size.Clinical cardiology · 2012Article
- Cardiovascular imaging 2010 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2011Review
- Positron emission tomography; viable tool in patients pre-CABG?The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) offers an important therapeutic option but is still associated with high perioperative mortality. Although previous studies suggest a benefit from revascularization for patients with defined viability by a non-invasive technique, the role of viability assessment to determine suitability for revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy has not yet been defined. This study evaluates the hypothesis that the use of PET imaging in the decision-making process for CABG will improve postoperative patient survival. We reviewed 476 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (LV ejection fraction <or=0.35) who were considered candidates for CABG between 1994 and 2004 on the basis of clinical presentation and angiographic data. In a Standard Care Group, 298 patients underwent CABG. In a second PET-assisted management group of 178 patients, 152 patients underwent CABG (PET-CABG) and 26 patients were excluded from CABG because of lack of viability (PET-Alternatives). Primary endpoint was postoperative survival. There were two in hospital deaths in the PET-CABG (1.3%) and 30 (10.1%) in the Standard Care Group (P = 0.018). The survival rate after 1, 5 and 9.3 years was 92.0, 73.3 and 54.2% in the PET-CABG and 88.9, 62.2 and 35.5% in the Standard Care Group, respectively (P = 0.005). Cox-regression analysis revealed a significant influence on long-term survival of patient selection by viability assessment via PET (P = 0.008), of LV-function (P = 0.017), and age >70 (P = 0.016). Preoperative assessment of myocardial viability via PET identifies patients, who will benefit most from CABG.
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.