ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2013
Patients with left bundle branch block pattern and high cardiac risk myocardial SPECT: does the current management suffice?
Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2013. 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.
- Rate-dependent left bundle branch block caused by hyperkalaemia.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2016Article
- Cost analysis favours SPECT over PET and CTA for evaluation of coronary artery disease: the SPARC study.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2014Article
- Exercise-induced left bundle branch block: an infrequent phenomenon: Report of two cases.World journal of cardiology · 2013Article
- Crown years for non-invasive cardiovascular imaging (Part II): 40 years of nuclear cardiology.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
introductionMyocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) is frequently used for cardiovascular risk stratification. The significance of MPS in patients with abnormal electrical ventricular activation is often questionable. This review assesses the value of MPS for risk stratification of patients with intrinsic left bundle branch block or that due to right ventricular apical pacing.
methodsWe reviewed the literature by a search of the MEDLINE database (January 1980 to September 2010). The terms prognosis or prognostic value were combined with SPECT and LBBB or pacing or pacemakers. MPS was categorised as low and high risk according to the original definitions.
resultsWe identified 11 studies suitable for review. A low-risk MPS is associated with a low risk of cardiac events whereas high-risk MPS carries a 4.8-fold increased risk, 95% CI [3.2 - 7.2] (p < 0.0001). Despite secondary prevention and an improved medical and interventional care, these figures have hardly changed over time. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: A low-risk MPS permits a policy of watchful waiting whereas a high-risk MPS requires further analysis and treatment. The persistent high cardiac death and acute myocardial infarction rate after a high-risk MPS suggest that the current management of these patients does not suffice and needs reconsideration.
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.