Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24408670›Full record

ArticleHeart and vessels2015

Resting qualitative and quantitative myocardial contrast echocardiography to predict cardiac events in patients with acute myocardial infarction and percutaneous revascularization.

Sahar S Abdelmoneim, Matthew W Martinez, Sunil V Mankad, Mathieu Bernier, Abhijeet Dhoble, Patricia A Pellikka, Krishnaswamy Chandrasekaran, Jae K Oh, Sharon L Mulvagh

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Heart and vessels, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sahar S AbdelmoneimDivision of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA, abdelmoneim.sahar@mayo.edu.
Matthew W Martinez
Sunil V Mankad
Mathieu Bernier
Abhijeet Dhoble
Patricia A Pellikka
Krishnaswamy Chandrasekaran
Jae K Oh
Sharon L Mulvagh
Mayo Clinic · USWinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successful restoration of patency of the infarct-related artery is important in management of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI); however, it does not necessarily translate into the restoration of perfusion at the tissue level. In this study, we evaluate the prognostic role of qualitative and quantitative myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) in predicting cardiac events (after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors) in STEMI patients undergoing reperfusion. Bedside resting real-time MCE using continuous infusion of diluted contrast agent (Definity) was performed within a median of 21.4 h from revascularization in STEMI. Myocardial perfusion on qualitative MCE was graded 1 = homogenous; 2 = partial/patchy; and 3 = absent. Perfusion score index (PSI) was calculated by adding the perfusion score in all segments divided by the total number of evaluable segments. Quantitative perfusion parameters [A, dB; β, sec(-1); and Aβ] were analyzed using a 17-segment model. Patients were followed for cardiac events including death; nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI); hospitalization for cardiac symptoms; coronary revascularization; or heart failure. Thirty-seven reperfused STEMI patients with a mean age of 64 years (range, 40-86 years) were enrolled and followed for a median of 1.4 years. Cardiac events occurred in 22 patients. Patients with cardiac events had a higher perfusion score index (PSI), and lower A, β and Aβ parameters compared to patients without events [1.84 ± 0.36 vs 1.39 ± 0.17 for PSI, P < 0.001; 0.57 ± 0.24 vs 0.85 ± 0.30 for A, P = 0.03; 0.34 ± 0.15 vs. 0.53 ± 0.17 for β, P = 0.002; and 0.21 ± 0.12 vs. 0.49 ± 0.32, for Aβ, P = 0.003; respectively]. A PSI value of 1.58 provided an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.873, while β of 0.423 and Aβ of 0.323 provided an AUC of 0.858 and 0.842, respectively. PSI and Aβ were independent predictors of cardiac events with an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.41 (1.19-12.27); and 4.19 (1.3-19.09), respectively. No contrast-related side effects were reported. Evaluation of perfusion in reperfused STEMI patients by qualitative and quantitative MCE (myocardial blood flow, Aβ) provides independent prediction of cardiac events.

Indexed as

EchocardiographyFluorocarbonsPercutaneous Coronary InterventionAcute Coronary SyndromeAgedContrast MediaFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisMyocardial InfarctionMyocardial ReperfusionPrognosisRegression AnalysisContrast MediaFluorocarbonsperflutren

Identifiers

PMID24408670
OpenAlexW2001185214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.