ArticleCurrent cardiology reviews2010
Myocardial Perfusion SPECT Imaging in Patients after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.
Article in Current cardiology reviews, 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decoding the Myocardium: Tracer-Aware Deep Learning for Patient-Level Classification in Stress-Rest SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Myocardial Perfusion Scintigraphy with and Without Attenuation Correction.Molecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2022Article
- A multicenter evaluation of the appropriate use of single-photon emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging in Greece.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most prevalent form of cardiovascular disease affecting about 13 million Americans, while more than one million percutaneous transluminal intervention (PCI) procedures are performed annually in the USA. The relative high occurrence of restenosis, despite stent implementation, seems to be the primary limitation of PCI. Over the last decades, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), has proven an invaluable tool for the diagnosis of CAD and patients' risk stratification, providing useful information regarding the decision about revascularization and is well suited to assess patients after intervention. Information gained from post-intervention MPI is crucial to differentiate patients with angina from those with exo-cardiac chest pain syndromes, to assess peri-intervention myocardial damage, to predict-detect restenosis after PCI, to detect CAD progression in non-revascularized vessels, to evaluate the effects of intervention if required for occupational reasons and to evaluate patients' long-term prognosis. On the other hand, chest pain and exercise electrocardiography are largely unhelpful in identifying patients at risk after PCI.Although there are enough published data demonstrating the value of myocardial perfusion SPECT imaging in patients after PCI, there is still debate on whether or not these tests should be performed routinely.
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.