Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27402229›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2016

Automated Extracellular Volume Fraction Mapping Provides Insights Into the Pathophysiology of Left Ventricular Remodeling Post-Reperfused ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

Heerajnarain Bulluck, Stefania Rosmini, Amna Abdel-Gadir, Steven K White, Anish N Bhuva, Thomas A Treibel, Marianna Fontana, Esther Gonzalez-Lopez, Patricia Reant, Manish Ramlall and 8 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Left ventricular functional recovery of infarcted and remote myocardium after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (METOCARD-CNIC randomized clinical trial substudy).Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2020
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

18 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Heerajnarain BulluckThe Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom The National Institute of Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Center, London, United Kingdom Barts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Stefania RosminiBarts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Amna Abdel-GadirBarts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Steven K WhiteThe Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom The National Institute of Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Center, London, United Kingdom Barts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Anish N BhuvaBarts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Thomas A TreibelBarts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Marianna FontanaBarts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Esther Gonzalez-LopezHospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain.
Patricia ReantCHU de Bordeaux, University of Bordeaux, France.
Manish RamlallThe Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom The National Institute of Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Center, London, United Kingdom Barts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Ashraf HamarnehThe Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom The National Institute of Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Center, London, United Kingdom Barts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Alex SirkerThe National Institute of Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Center, London, United Kingdom Barts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Anna S HerreyBarts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Charlotte ManistyBarts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Derek M YellonThe Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom The National Institute of Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Center, London, United Kingdom.
Peter KellmanNational Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
James C MoonThe National Institute of Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Center, London, United Kingdom Barts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Derek J HausenloyThe Hatter Cardiovascular Institute, Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom The National Institute of Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Center, London, United Kingdom Barts Heart Center, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, United Kingdom Cardiovascular and Metabolic Disorders Program, Duke-National University of Singapore, Singapore National Heart Research Institute Singapore, National Heart Center Singapore, Singapore derek.hausenloy@duke-nus.edu.sg.
St Bartholomew's Hospital · GBRoyal London Hospital · GBHospital Universitario Puerta de Hierro Majadahonda · ESNational Heart Lung and Blood Institute · USNational Institute for Health Research · GBNational University of Singapore · SGUniversité de Bordeaux · FRUniversity College London · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation FS/10/039/28270British Heart Foundation FS/10/40/28260British Heart Foundation FS/10/72/28568British Heart Foundation FS/12/56/29723Department of Health DRF-2013-06-102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhether the remote myocardium of reperfused ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients plays a part in adverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling remains unclear. We aimed to use automated extracellular volume fraction (ECV) mapping to investigate whether changes in the ECV of the remote (ECVR emote) and infarcted myocardium (ECVI nfarct) impacted LV remodeling. METHODS AND

resultsForty-eight of 50 prospectively recruited reperfused STEMI patients completed a cardiovascular magnetic resonance at 4±2 days and 40 had a follow-up scan at 5±2 months. Twenty healthy volunteers served as controls. Mean segmental values for native T1, T2, and ECV were obtained. Adverse LV remodeling was defined as ≥20% increase in LV end-diastolic volume. ECVR emote was higher on the acute scan when compared to control (27.9±2.1% vs 26.4±2.1%; P=0.01). Eight patients developed adverse LV remodeling and had higher ECVR emote acutely (29.5±1.4% vs 27.4±2.0%; P=0.01) and remained higher at follow-up (28.6±1.5% vs 26.6±2.1%; P=0.02) compared to those without. Patients with a higher ECVR emote and a lower myocardial salvage index (MSI) acutely were significantly associated with adverse LV remodeling, independent of T1Remote, T1Core and microvascular obstruction, whereas a higher ECVI nfarct was significantly associated with worse wall motion recovery.

conclusionsECVR emote was increased acutely in reperfused STEMI patients. Those with adverse LV remodeling had higher ECVR emote acutely, and this remained higher at follow-up than those without adverse LV remodeling. A higher ECVR emote and a lower MSI acutely were significantly associated with adverse LV remodeling whereas segments with higher ECVI nfarct were less likely to recover wall motion.

Indexed as

Percutaneous Coronary InterventionAgedCase-Control StudiesExtracellular MatrixFemaleHeartHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance Imaging, CineMaleMiddle AgedST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionVentricular Remodelingextracellular volume fractionleft ventricular remodelingST‐segment elevation myocardial infarctionT1 mappingT2 mapping

Identifiers

PMID27402229
PMCPMC5015393
OpenAlexW2470712889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.