Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28750637›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2017

Quantification of myocardium at risk in ST- elevation myocardial infarction: a comparison of contrast-enhanced steady-state free precession cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance with coronary angiographic jeopardy scores.

Rodney De Palma, Peder Sörensson, Dinos Verouhis, John Pernow, Nawzad Saleh

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance: 2017/2018 in review.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2019
    Review
  4. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2017.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2018
    Review
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

5 authors.

Rodney De PalmaKarolinska Institutet, Department of Medicine, Unit of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. rodney_de_palma@icloud.com.
Peder SörenssonKarolinska Institutet, Department of Medicine, Unit of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Dinos VerouhisKarolinska Institutet, Department of Medicine, Unit of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
John PernowKarolinska Institutet, Department of Medicine, Unit of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nawzad SalehKarolinska Institutet, Department of Medicine, Unit of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical outcome following acute myocardial infarction is predicted by final infarct size evaluated in relation to left ventricular myocardium at risk (MaR). Contrast-enhanced steady-state free precession (CE-SSFP) cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is not widely used for assessing MaR. Evidence of its utility compared to traditional assessment methods and as a surrogate for clinical outcome is needed.

methodsRetrospective analysis within a study evaluating post-conditioning during ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with coronary intervention (n = 78). CE-SSFP post-infarction was compared with angiographic jeopardy methods. Differences and variability between CMR and angiographic methods using Bland-Altman analyses were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were compared to MaR and extent of infarction.

resultsMaR showed correlation between CE-SSFP, and both BARI and APPROACH scores of 0.83 (p < 0.0001) and 0.84 (p < 0.0001) respectively. Bias between CE-SSFP and BARI was 1.1% (agreement limits -11.4 to +9.1). Bias between CE-SSFP and APPROACH was 1.2% (agreement limits -13 to +10.5). Inter-observer variability for the BARI score was 0.56 ± 2.9; 0.42 ± 2.1 for the APPROACH score; -1.4 ± 3.1% for CE-SSFP. Intra-observer variability was 0.15 ± 1.85 for the BARI score; for the APPROACH score 0.19 ± 1.6; and for CE-SSFP -0.58 ± 2.9%.

conclusionQuantification of MaR with CE-SSFP imaging following STEMI shows high correlation and low bias compared with angiographic scoring and supports its use as a reliable and practical method to determine myocardial salvage in this patient population.

trial registrationClinical trial registration information for the parent clinical trial: Karolinska Clinical Trial Registration (2008) Unique identifier: CT20080014. Registered 04

Indexed as

Coronary AngiographyMagnetic Resonance Imaging, CineAgedCoronary VesselsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedObserver VariationPercutaneous Coronary InterventionPredictive Value of TestsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsST Elevation Myocardial Infarctioncardiovascular magnetic resonance imagingmyocardial salvageMyocardium

Identifiers

PMID28750637
PMCPMC5530997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.