Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21104361›Full record

ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2011

Impact of ischemia on left ventricular dyssynchrony by phase analysis of gated single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging.

Wael Aljaroudi, Jayanth Koneru, Jaekyeong Heo, Ami E Iskandrian

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Left ventricular mechanical dyssnchrony: A potential new marker for 3-vessel CAD.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Myocardial ischemia and previous infarction contribute to left ventricular dyssynchrony in patients with coronary artery disease.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021
    Article
  10. Observational
  11. Left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony in patients with chest pain and normal epicardial coronary arteries.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021
    Article
  12. Are SPECT MPI measures of dyssynchrony dyssynchronous?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021
    Article
  13. Auxiliary ischemic markers, the role of left ventricular dyssynchrony.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020
    Article
  14. Left ventricular dyssynchrony and abnormalities in wall motion, assessed by gated-SPECT as ischemic auxiliary markers.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020
    Observational
  15. Is myocardial viability related to left ventricular dyssynchrony?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020
    Article
  16. Could myocardial viability be related to left ventricular dyssynchrony? Simultaneous evaluation by gated SPECT-MPI.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020
    Article
  17. Left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony for CAD diagnosis: Does it have incremental clinical values?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020
    Article
  18. Myocardial stunning by gated SPECT: An old tool reinvented in a stunning turn.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Wael AljaroudiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. aljarow@ccf.org
Jayanth Koneru
Jaekyeong Heo
Ami E Iskandrian

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing awareness of the value of phase analysis of gated tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging in assessing left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony. A concern repeatedly raised in many studies is whether reversible defects in the stress images "ischemia" could affect the phase-derived standard deviation and bandwidth, the two commonly used dyssynchrony indices. We hypothesized that the stress and rest images should provide comparable information because the images are acquired 1 hour after the tracer injection. METHODS AND

resultsWe studied two groups of patients with normal LV ejection fraction and no fixed perfusion defects. In group-1 (N = 20), the patients had reversible perfusion defects involving > 10% of the LV myocardium and in group-2 (N = 20), the patients had normal images. All patients underwent stress/rest-gated single photon emission computed tomography sestamibi imaging (the stress study was acquired with the lower dose) between January and March 2010. Patients with left bundle branch block or ventricular pacing were excluded. The patients in group-1 had a mean age of 61 ± 9 years, 65% were men, 75% Caucasians, and 70% had known prior coronary artery disease. The size of the reversible perfusion defect was 20 ± 13% (range 11%-50%) of the LV myocardium. The rest and stress phase-derived standard deviation (16 ± 6° vs 18 ± 8° and 16 ± 7° vs. 19 ± 6°) and the rest and stress bandwidth (42 ± 14° vs 46 ± 16° and 45 ± 17° vs 52 ± 12°), respectively, (P = NS for all) were similar in the two groups. The change (stress-rest) in standard deviation and bandwidth in groups 1 and 2 were not statistically significant (0.2 ± 3.1° vs 1.4 ± 4.7°, and 2 ± 13° vs 5 ± 13°, respectively, P = NS). There was no significant change from rest to stress in the standard deviation and the bandwidth in group-1 (P = .8 and .4, respectively) and group-2 (P = .2 and .08, respectively). There was no correlation between the size of the reversible perfusion defect and the change in phase standard deviation or bandwidth (r = 0.07 and 0.12, respectively, P = NS).

conclusionsThe presence of even a large reversible perfusion defect does not alter the indices of mechanical dyssynchrony by phase analysis. Further, comparable information is obtained whether using a low dose or a high dose of the radiotracer.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsCardiac-Gated Single-Photon Emission Computer-Assisted TomographyHumansImage EnhancementImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial IschemiaMyocardial Perfusion ImagingReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityVentricular Dysfunction, Left

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.