ArticlePostepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology2017
Do we need invasive confirmation of cardiac magnetic resonance results?
Article in Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology, 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCoronary artery revascularization is indicated in patients with documented significant obstruction of coronary blood flow associated with a large area of myocardial ischemia and/or untreatable symptoms. There are a few invasive or noninvasive methods that can provide information about the functional results of coronary artery narrowing. The application of more than one method of ischemia detection in one patient to reevaluate the indications for revascularization is used in case of atypical or no symptoms and/or borderline stenosis.
aimTo evaluate whether the results of cardiac magnetic resonance need to be reconfirmed by the invasive functional method. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe hospital database revealed 25 consecutive patients with 29 stenoses who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) between the end of 2010 and the end of 2014. The maximal time interval between CMR and FFR was 6 months. None of the patients experienced any clinical events or underwent procedures on coronary arteries between the studies.
resultsAccording to the analysis, the agreement of CMR perfusion with the FFR method was at the level of 89.7%. Assuming that FFR is the gold standard in assessing the severity of stenoses, the sensitivity of CMR perfusion was 90.9%. The percentage of non-severe lesions which were correctly identified in CMR was 88.9%.
conclusionsThe study shows that CMR perfusion is a highly sensitive method to detect hemodynamically significant CAD and exclude nonsevere lesions. With FFR as the reference standard, the diagnostic accuracy of MR perfusion to detect ischemic CAD is high.
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.