ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2013
Gender differences in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging after acute myocardial infarction.
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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Overweight predisposes to microvascular obstruction: insights from the TATORT-NSTEMI trial.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Trial
- Cardiovascular disease in women: insights from magnetic resonance imaging.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2020Review
- Left ventricular remodelling after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: sex differences and prognosis.ESC heart failure · 2020Article
- Gender but not diabetes, hypertension or smoking affects infarct evolution in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients - data from the CHILL-MI, MITOCARE and SOCCER trials.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2019Article
- Does sex influence the incidence or severity of reperfusion-induced cardiac arrhythmias?SpringerPlus · 2015Article
- Cardiovascular imaging 2013 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Besides different risk profiles for cardiovascular events in men and women, several studies reported gender differences in mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). As infarct size has been shown to correlate with mortality, it is widely accepted as surrogate marker for clinical outcome. Currently, cardiovascular imaging studies covering the issue of gender differences are rare. As magnetic resonance scar characterization parameters are emerging as additional prognostic factors after acute myocardial infarction, we sought to evaluate gender differences in CMR infarct characteristics in patients after acute myocardial infarction. We prospectively analyzed patients (n = 448) with AMI and primary angioplasty, who underwent contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging on a 1.5 T scanner in median 5 [4, 6] days after the acute event. [corrected]. CMR scar size was measured 15 min after gadolinium injection. In addition presence and extent of microvascular obstruction (MVO) was assessed. A matched pair analysis was performed in order to exclude confounding by gender related co-morbidities and gender differences in established clinical risk factors. Matching process according to clinical risk defined by GRACE score resulted in 93 mixed gender couples. Women were significantly older than men (64.4 ± 11.9 vs. 60.5 ± 12.3, p = 0.03) and presented with a significantly better ejection fraction before angioplasty (48.9 ± 8.4 vs. 46.2 ± 8.9, p = 0.04). Infarct size did not differ significantly between women and men (13.5 ± 10.7 vs. 15.1 ± 11.8, p = 0.32). Size of MVO was significantly smaller in women than in men (0.48 ± 1.3 vs. 1.2 ± 3.0, p = 0.03). Comparing scar characterization between women and men with similar risk profiles revealed no gender differences in scar size. Size of MVO, however, was significantly smaller in women and might reflect better cardioprotective mechanisms in women. Whether these changes have prognostic implications has to be tested on a larger patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23053858What 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.