Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26885831›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2016

Unrecognized Myocardial Infarction Assessed by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging--Prognostic Implications.

Anna M Nordenskjöld, Per Hammar, Håkan Ahlström, Tomas Bjerner, Olov Duvernoy, Kai M Eggers, Ole Fröbert, Nermin Hadziosmanovic, Bertil Lindahl

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Reassessing the clinical significance of electrocardiographically unrecognized myocardial infarctions: Radionuclide infarct size and its impact on long-term prognosis.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Anna M NordenskjöldDepartment of Cardiology, Faculty of Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Per HammarDepartment of Radiology, Västmanland Hospital Västerås, Västerås, Sweden.
Håkan AhlströmDepartment of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Tomas BjernerDepartment of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Olov DuvernoyDepartment of Radiology, Oncology and Radiation Science, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Kai M EggersDepartment of Medical Sciences, Cardiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Ole FröbertDepartment of Cardiology, Faculty of Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
Nermin HadziosmanovicUppsala Clinical Research Centre, Uppsala, Sweden.
Bertil LindahlDepartment of Medical Sciences, Cardiology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinically unrecognized myocardial infarctions (UMI) are not uncommon and may be associated with adverse outcome. The aims of this study were to determine the prognostic implication of UMI in patients with stable suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) and to investigate the associations of UMI with the presence of CAD. METHODS AND

findingsIn total 235 patients late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance (LGE-CMR) imaging and coronary angiography were performed. For each patient with UMI, the stenosis grade of the coronary branch supplying the infarcted area was determined. UMIs were present in 25% of the patients and 67% of the UMIs were located in an area supplied by a coronary artery with a stenosis grade ≥70%. In an age- and gender-adjusted model, UMI independently predicted the primary endpoint (composite of death, myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, hospitalization for unstable angina pectoris or heart failure within 2 years of follow-up) with an odds ratio of 2.9; 95% confidence interval 1.1-7.9. However, this association was abrogated after adjustment for age and presence of significant coronary disease. There was no difference in the primary endpoint rates between UMI patients with or without a significant stenosis in the corresponding coronary artery.

conclusionsThe presence of UMI was associated with a threefold increased risk of adverse events during follow up. However, the difference was no longer statistically significant after adjustments for age and severity of CAD. Thus, the results do not support that patients with suspicion of CAD should be routinely investigated by LGE-CMR for UMI. However, coronary angiography should be considered in patients with UMI detected by LGE-CMR.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NTC01257282.

Indexed as

AgedCoronary Artery DiseaseEndpoint DeterminationFemaleHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLogistic ModelsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisMyocardial InfarctionPrevalencePrognosis

Identifiers

PMID26885831
PMCPMC4757080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.