Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27059621›Full record

ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2016

Evaluation of extracorporeal shock wave therapy for refractory angina pectoris with quantitative analysis using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a short communication.

J Slikkerveer, K de Boer, L F H J Robbers, A C van Rossum, O Kamp

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Acoustic shock waves, a new weapon against angina?Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2016
    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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

J SlikkerveerDepartment of Cardiology and Institute of Cardiovascular Research, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081, HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands. j.slikkerveer@vumc.nl.
K de BoerDepartment of Cardiology and Institute of Cardiovascular Research, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081, HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
L F H J RobbersDepartment of Cardiology and Institute of Cardiovascular Research, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081, HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
A C van RossumDepartment of Cardiology and Institute of Cardiovascular Research, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081, HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
O KampDepartment of Cardiology and Institute of Cardiovascular Research, VU University Medical Center, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081, HV Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThere is a continuing search for new treatment options in patients who suffer from refractory angina pectoris to improve quality of life. Several studies have recently demonstrated promising results by stimulating angiogenesis using extracorporeal shockwave therapy in these patients. The purpose of this study is to quantitatively analyse the effect of extracorporeal shockwave therapy on myocardial perfusion in patients with refractory angina pectoris.

methodsWe included 15 patients with NYHA class 3-4 of whom 8 patients underwent baseline and follow-up cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). All patients received 9 shockwave treatments of their ischaemic zone over a period of 3 months.

resultsQuantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion using CMR revealed no significant improvement of myocardial perfusion after treatment (0.80 ± 0.22 vs 0.76 ± 0.31; p = 0.42). However, the total group of 15 patients did experience a significant improvement in NYHA class (p = 0.034) and reduction of nitroglycerin use (p = 0.012).

conclusionAlthough treatment with extracorporeal shockwave was associated with an improvement in NYHA class, we could not observe an improvement in myocardial ischaemic zone and perfusion with CMR. To unravel the exact mechanisms of shockwave treatment, more in vitro and animal studies as well as larger (placebo-controlled) studies are required.

Indexed as

Cardiac MRIMyocardial perfusionQuantitative analysisRefractory angina pectorisShockwave therapy

Identifiers

PMID27059621
PMCPMC4840110
OpenAlexW2312653693

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.