ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2013
Computerized left ventricular regional ejection fraction analysis for detection of ischemic coronary artery disease with multidetector CT angiography.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does transendocardial injection of mesenchymal stem cells improve myocardial function locally or globally?: An analysis from the Percutaneous Stem Cell Injection Delivery Effects on Neomyogenesis (POSEIDON) randomized trial.Circulation research · 2014Trial
- [Using CT to Evaluate Cardiac Function].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2024Review
- Comparison of Echocardiography, Cardiac Magnetic Resonance, and Computed Tomographic Imaging for the Evaluation of Left Ventricular Myocardial Function: Part 2 (Diastolic and Regional Assessment).Current cardiology reports · 2017Review
- Regional ejection fraction and regional area strain for left ventricular function assessment in male patients after first-time myocardial infarction.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Regional ejection fraction (REF) provides important functional information of the left ventricular regional myocardium. We aimed to test the diagnostic accuracy of computerized REF analysis for detecting the ischemia and significant stenosis with multidetector CT angiography (MDCT). This is a retrospective study including 155 patients who underwent MDCT scans for evaluation of coronary artery disease. Among them, 83 patients also underwent SPECT imaging and invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Two groups of patients were defined: Control group with 0 coronary artery calcium and normal global and regional ventricular function, and comparison group. REF measurement was performed on all patients using computerized software. Control group REF measurements will be used as reference standard (mean-2SD REF/mean global ejection fraction) to define abnormal REF. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of REF in detecting perfusion defects (fixed and reversible) was 73, 80, 75 and 79 % respectively, in a patient based analysis of comparison group. The diagnostic accuracy of REF in predicting significant stenosis (>50 %) on ICA compared with SPECT was 72 versus 61 % and 85 versus 79 % in patient and vessel based analysis of comparison group, respectively. ROC curve analysis showed REF to be a better predictor of perfusion defects on SPECT compared with significant stenosis (>50 %) alone or stenosis combined with REF (P < 0.05). The computerized assessment of REF analysis is comparable to SPECT in predicting ischemia and a better predictor of significant stenosis than SPECT. This study also provides reference standard to define abnormal values.
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.