ArticlePloS one2017
The Systematic Evaluation of Identifying the Infarct Related Artery Utilizing Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Patients Presenting with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentification of the infarct-related artery (IRA) in patients with STEMI using coronary angiography (CA) is often based on the ECG and can be challenging in patients with severe multi-vessel disease. The current study aimed to determine how often percutaneous intervention (PCI) is performed in a coronary artery different from the artery supplying the territory of acute infarction on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR).
methodsWe evaluated 113 patients from the Reduction of infarct Expansion and Ventricular remodeling with Erythropoetin After Large myocardial infarction (REVEAL) trial, who underwent CMR within 4±2 days of revascularization. Blinded reviewers interpreted CA to determine the IRA and CMR to determine the location of infarction on a 17-segment model. In patients with multiple infarcts on CMR, acuity was determined with T2-weighted imaging and/or evidence of microvascular obstruction.
resultsA total of 5 (4%) patients were found to have a mismatch between the IRA identified on CMR and CA. In 4/5 cases, there were multiple infarcts noted on CMR. Thirteen patients (11.5%) had multiple infarcts in separate territories on CMR with 4 patients (3.5%) having multiple acute infarcts and 9 patients (8%) having both acute and chronic infarcts.
conclusionsIn this select population of patients, the identification of the IRA by CA was incorrect in 4% of patients presenting with STEMI. Four patients with a mismatch had an acute infarction in more than one coronary artery territory on CMR. The role of CMR in patients presenting with STEMI with multi-vessel disease on CA deserves further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.