Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28638298›Full record

ArticleOchsner journal2017

Uncertainty of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Chest Pain Risk Stratification.

Htoo Kyaw, Sivacharan Buddhavarapu, Joseph Abboud, Deepika Misra

Abstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Ochsner journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Htoo KyawDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY.
Sivacharan BuddhavarapuDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, Brooklyn, NY.
Joseph AbboudDivision of Cardiology, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY.
Deepika MisraDivision of Cardiology, The Brooklyn Hospital Center, New York, NY.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChest pain is a common presenting symptom in the emergency department (ED). Although the diagnostic workup for chest pain is well established, the best time to perform invasive cardiac catheterization in patients with low to moderate risk of coronary artery disease is still unclear, particularly if noninvasive tests such as the electrocardiogram (ECG) and nuclear myocardial perfusion scan show nonsignificant findings. CASE REPORT: We present the case of a 52-year-old female who presented to the ED with acute-onset chest pain that had started early in the morning while she was sleeping. She had presented to the ED 2 weeks prior with chest pain, but her ECG and transthoracic echocardiogram were normal, and her myocardial perfusion scan revealed no significant perfusion defect, so she was discharged. During her second ED visit, the patient developed an arrhythmia, diagnosed as supraventricular tachycardia, that was rapidly converted to sinus rhythm with one dose of intravenous adenosine. Because of her persistent chest pain and the arrhythmia, she underwent cardiac catheterization that revealed coronary artery disease with 80% middle left anterior descending artery stenosis. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed, and the patient's symptoms resolved.

conclusionChest pain evaluation is challenging for ED physicians, hospitalists, and cardiologists. Although the nuclear myocardial perfusion scan has excellent sensitivity and specificity in ischemic detection, the clinical examination remains the primary determinant of further management.

Indexed as

Acute coronary syndromeangina pectorischest painmyocardial perfusion imaging

Identifiers

PMID28638298
PMCPMC5472084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.