ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2012
Potential clinical impact of cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of ejection fraction on eligibility for cardioverter defibrillator implantation.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cardiovascular MRI Compared to Echocardiography to Identify Cardioaortic Sources of Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Pooled it
- 2014 Korean guidelines for appropriate utilization of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: a joint report of the Korean Society of Cardiology and the Korean Society of Radiology.Korean journal of radiologyGuideline
- Multimodality Assessment for Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support Implantation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Role of Multimodality Imaging in Cardiomyopathy.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Echocardiography and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in the Assessment of Left-Ventricle Remodeling: Differences Implying Clinical Decision.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Heart Failure.Cardiovascular innovations and applications · 2024Article
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance and Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk Assessment in Chronic Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: An Unmet Need?Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Arrhythmic risk stratification by cardiac magnetic resonance tissue characterization: disclosing the arrhythmic substrate within the heart muscle.Heart failure reviews · 2022Review
- Article
- Prognostic value of cardiovascular magnetic resonance left ventricular volumetry and geometry in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2021Observational
- Cardiac MRI for Patients with Increased Cardiometabolic Risk.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2021Article
- Clinical outcomes after primary prevention defibrillator implantation are better predicted when the left ventricular ejection fraction is assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2020Article
- Left ventricular ejection fraction as therapeutic target: is it the ideal marker?Heart failure reviews · 2017Review
- Relationship between right and left ventricular function in candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillator with low left ventricular ejection fraction.Journal of arrhythmia · 2017Article
- Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2013.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2014Review
- 2014 korean guidelines for appropriate utilization of cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging: a joint report of the korean society of cardiology and the korean society of radiology.Korean circulation journal · 2014Review
- Assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients eligible for ICD therapy: Discrepancy between cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and 2D echocardiography.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2014Article
- Imaging to guide ICD therapy: beware what lies beneath.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2014Article
- Review of Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2012.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2013Review
- Highlights of the 16th annual scientific sessions of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, guidelines provide left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) criteria for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement without specifying the technique by which it should be measured. We sought to investigate the potential impact of performing cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for EF on ICD eligibility.
methodsThe study population consisted of patients being considered for ICD implantation who were referred for EF assessment by CMR. Patients who underwent CMR within 30 days of echocardiography were included. Echocardiographic EF was determined by Simpson's biplane method and CMR EF was measured by Simpson's summation of discs method.
resultsFifty-two patients (age 62±15 years, 81% male) had a mean EF of 38 ± 14% by echocardiography and 35 ± 14% by CMR. CMR had greater reproducibility than echocardiography for both intra-observer (ICC, 0.98 vs 0.94) and inter-observer comparisons (ICC 0.99 vs 0.93). The limits of agreement comparing CMR and echocardiographic EF were - 16 to +10 percentage points. CMR resulted in 11 of 52 (21%) and 5 of 52 (10%) of patients being reclassified regarding ICD eligibility at the EF thresholds of 35 and 30% respectively. Among patients with an echocardiographic EF of between 25 and 40%, 9 of 22 (41%) were reclassified by CMR at either the 35 or 30% threshold. Echocardiography identified only 1 of the 6 patients with left ventricular thrombus noted incidentally on CMR.
conclusionsCMR resulted in 21% of patients being reclassified regarding ICD eligibility when strict EF criteria were used. In addition, CMR detected unexpected left ventricular thrombus in almost 10% of patients. Our findings suggest that the use of CMR for EF assessment may have a substantial impact on management in patients being considered for ICD implantation.
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.