ArticleCardiology research and practice2012
Myocardial viability: what we knew and what is new.
Article in Cardiology research and practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Update of the Brazilian Guideline on Nuclear Cardiology - 2020.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Guideline
- Selecting the appropriate patients for coronary artery bypass grafting in ischemic cardiomyopathy-importance of myocardial viability.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024Review
- Validity of resting strain/strain rate in prediction of myocardial viability.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2022Article
- Accuracy of myocardial viability imaging by cardiac MRI and PET depending on left ventricular function.World journal of cardiology · 2018Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of resting left ventricular akinesia/hypokinesia in predicting abnormal coronary angiography.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2016Article
- Non-invasive imaging in detecting myocardial viability: Myocardial function versus perfusion.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2014Review
- Advanced tracers in PET imaging of cardiovascular disease.BioMed research international · 2014Review
- IGF-1 is not related to long-term outcome in hyperglycemic acute coronary syndrome patients.Diabetes & vascular disease researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some patients with chronic ischemic left ventricular dysfunction have shown significant improvements of contractility with favorable long-term prognosis after revascularization. Several imaging techniques are available for the assessment of viable myocardium, based on the detection of preserved perfusion, preserved glucose metabolism, intact cell membrane and mitochondria, and presence of contractile reserve. Nuclear cardiology techniques, dobutamine echocardiography and positron emission tomography are used to assess myocardial viability. In recent years, new advances have improved methods of detecting myocardial viability. This paper summarizes the pathophysiology, methods, and impact of detection of myocardial viability, concentrating on recent advances in such methods. We reviewed the literature using search engines MIDLINE, SCOUPS, and EMBASE from 1988 to February 2012. We used key words: myocardial viability, hibernation, stunning, and ischemic cardiomyopathy. Recent studies showed that the presence of viable myocardium was associated with a greater likelihood of survival in patients with coronary artery disease and LV dysfunction, but the assessment of myocardial viability did not identify patients with survival benefit from revascularization, as compared with medical therapy alone. This topic is still debatable and needs more evidence.
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.