ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2017
Utility of stress perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance in follow-up of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions of the left main coronary artery.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Non-Invasive Diagnosis of Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Focus on Stress Computed Tomography Perfusion and Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Contemporary Role of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in the Management of Patients with Suspected or Known Coronary Artery Disease.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
- Cardiovascular imaging 2017 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess the accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) for the diagnosis of angiographic stenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of left main coronary artery (LMCA). Patients undergone in the last year PCI of unprotected LMCA and scheduled for conventional X-ray coronary angiography (CXA) were evaluated with stress perfusion CMR within 2 weeks before CXA. Main contraindications to CMR were exclusion criteria. Stress perfusion CMR was performed to follow a bolus of contrast Gadobutrol after 3 min of adenosine infusion. Between the 50 patients enrolled, only 1 did not finish the CMR protocol and 49 patients with median age 71 (65-75) years (38 male, 11 female) were analyzed. Between 784 coronary angiographic segments evaluated we found 75 stenosis or occlusions (prevalence 9.5%), but only 13 stenosis or occlusions in proximal segments (prevalence 6.6%). Patients with coronary stenosis (n = 12, 24%) showed a significantly (p = 0.002) higher prevalence of diabetes (7 of 12, 58%). At CMR examination, late gadolinium enhancement was present in 25 (51%), reversible perfusion defects in 12 (24%), and fixed perfusion defects in 6 subjects (12%). The only patient with LMCA restenosis resulted positive at perfusion CMR. The accuracy of stress perfusion CMR in diagnosis of coronary stenosis was higher when the analysis was performed only in proximal coronary arteries (95%, CI 86-99) compared to overall vessels (84%, CI 70-92). Stress perfusion CMR could strongly reduce the need for elective CXA in follow up of LMCA PCI and should be validated in further multicenter prospective studies.
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.