Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25733105›Full record

ReviewJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2015

Myocardial viability as integral part of the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to ischemic heart failure.

Jeroen J Bax, Victoria Delgado

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05194865 (Comparison Between Coronary Revascularization Based on CMR Viability Study Vs Direct Revascularization in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy), which is not on this map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05194865 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Comparison Between Coronary Revascularization Based on CMR Viability Study Vs Direct Revascularization in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

TypeobservationalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2022 to 2023Enrolled15ConditionsIschemic CardiomyopathyArmscardiac MRI, Percutaneous coronary intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Update of the Brazilian Guideline on Nuclear Cardiology - 2020.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Next-generation molecular imaging of cardiac fibrosis.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Ischaemic and viability testing for guiding PCI are overrated: pros and cons.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. How viable is SPECT for viability assessment in the PET era?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021
    Article
  9. Assessment of myocardial viability with [Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Molecular Imaging of the Heart.Comprehensive Physiology · 2019
    Review
  13. Viability testing to guide myocardial revascularisation in patients with heart failure.Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2018
    Review
  14. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Guidelines: Instrumentation, Acquisition, Processing, and Interpretation.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. PET/MR: Yet another Tesla?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2017
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Jeroen J BaxDepartment of Cardiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands, j.j.bax@lumc.nl.
Victoria Delgado

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chronic heart failure is a major public-health problem with a high prevalence, complex treatment, and high mortality. A careful and comprehensive analysis is needed to provide optimal (and personalized) therapy to heart failure patients. The main 4 non-invasive imaging techniques (echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, multi-detector-computed tomography, and nuclear imaging) provide information on cardiovascular anatomy and function, which form the basis of the assessment of the pathophysiology underlying heart failure. The selection of imaging modalities depends on the information that is needed for the clinical management of the patients: (1) underlying etiology (ischemic vs non-ischemic); (2) in ischemic patients, need for revascularization should be evaluated (myocardial ischemia/viability?); (3) left ventricular function and shape assessment; (4) presence of significant secondary mitral regurgitation; (5) device therapy with cardiac resynchronization therapy and/or implantable cardiac defibrillator (risk of sudden cardiac death). This review is dedicated to assessment of myocardial viability, however "isolated assessment of myocardial viability" may be clinically not meaningful and should be considered among all those different variables. This complete information will enable personalized treatment of the patient with ischemic heart failure.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingEvidence-Based MedicineHeartHeart FailureHeart Function TestsHumansMyocardial IschemiaPrognosisRadionuclide ImagingTissue SurvivalTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25733105
PMCPMC4490177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.