ArticleOchsner journal2017
Uncertainty of Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Chest Pain Risk Stratification.
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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
28638298PMC5472084What 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.