ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2013
Head-to-head comparison of a 2-day myocardial perfusion gated SPECT protocol and cardiac magnetic resonance late gadolinium enhancement for the detection of myocardial infarction.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of an automated method to quantify stress-induced ischemia and infarction in rest-stress myocardial perfusion SPECT.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2014Trial
- Diagnostic accuracy for CZT gamma camera compared to conventional gamma camera technique with myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography: Assessment of myocardial infarction and function.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- To what extent are perfusion defects seen by myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients with left bundle branch block related to myocardial infarction, ECG characteristics, and myocardial wall motion?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of gated myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) with a technetium-labelled (Tc) perfusion tracer to detect myocardial infarction (MI) in a clinical population referred for assessment of stress-induced ischemia using late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as reference method.
methods119 patients referred for evaluation of stress-induced ischemia with MPS were included. 108 patients (age 62 ± 10 years, 39% females) completed MPS and CMR. A 2-day protocol for MPS was used for most patients (n = 105).
resultsMI was found in 31 patients (29%) using MPS and in 30 patients using CMR (28%). The sensitivity and specificity on a patient basis were 93% and 96%, respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) was 90% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 97%. Per territory, the sensitivity and specificity for LAD infarcts were 83% and 97%, respectively. PPV was 77% and NPV was 98% for LAD infarcts. The sensitivity and specificity for RCA/LCx infarcts were 95% and 95%, respectively. PPV was 84% and NPV was 99% for RCA/LCx infarcts. The MI size on CMR was 12.0 ± 7.3% of the LV and mean transmurality was 66.3 ± 12.0%. All MI > 3% were detected on gated SPECT.
conclusionThis study has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for gated Tc-MPS detecting subendocardial and transmural MI.
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.