ArticleYonsei medical journal2017
Impact of Follow-Up Ischemia on Myocardial Perfusion Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evaluation of Left Ventricle Ischemic Extent in Patients with Significantly Suspicious Cardiovascular Disease byDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Effects of Xinnaoning combined with trimetazidine on the levels of CK and its isoenzymes, AST, ALT and LDH in patients with myocardial ischemia.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFew studies have reported on predicting prognosis using myocardial perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) during coronary artery disease (CAD) treatment. Therefore, we aimed to assess the clinical implications of myocardial perfusion SPECT during follow-up for CAD treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe enrolled 1153 patients who had abnormal results at index SPECT and underwent follow-up SPECT at intervals ≥6 months. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were compared in overall and 346 patient pairs after propensity-score (PS) matching.
resultsAbnormal SPECT was associated with a significantly higher risk of MACE in comparison with normal SPECT over the median of 6.3 years (32.3% vs. 19.8%; unadjusted p<0.001). After PS matching, abnormal SPECT posed a higher risk of MACE [32.1% vs. 19.1%; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.27-2.34; p<0.001] than normal SPECT. After PS matching, the risk of MACE was still higher in patients with abnormal follow-up SPECT in the revascularization group (30.2% vs. 17.9%; adjusted HR=1.73; 95% CI=1.15-2.59; p=0.008). Low ejection fraction [odds ratio (OR)=5.33; 95% CI=3.39-8.37; p<0.001] and medical treatment (OR=2.68; 95% CI=1.93-3.72; p<0.001) were independent clinical predictors of having an abnormal result on follow-up SPECT.
conclusionAbnormal follow-up SPECT appears to be associated with a high risk of MACE during CAD treatment. Follow-up SPECT may play a potential role in identifying patients at high cardiovascular risk.
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.