Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29110669›Full record

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

A comparison of cardiovascular magnetic resonance and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging in left main stem or equivalent coronary artery disease: a CE-MARC substudy.

James R J Foley, Ananth Kidambi, John D Biglands, Neil Maredia, Catherine J Dickinson, Sven Plein, John P Greenwood

Open access · goldAbstract 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 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. SCMR Position Paper (2020) on clinical indications for cardiovascular magnetic resonance.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2020
    Guideline
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Diagnosis of diffuse ischemia with SPECT relative perfusion imaging: How to eat soup with a fork?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Objective, observer-independent evaluation of myocardial perfusion and function: role of SPECT.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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
  13. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

James R J FoleyMultidisciplinary Cardiovascular Research Centre & The Division of Biomedical Imaging, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Ananth KidambiMultidisciplinary Cardiovascular Research Centre & The Division of Biomedical Imaging, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
John D BiglandsMultidisciplinary Cardiovascular Research Centre & The Division of Biomedical Imaging, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Neil MarediaMultidisciplinary Cardiovascular Research Centre & The Division of Biomedical Imaging, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Catherine J DickinsonCardiology Department, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, UK.
Sven PleinMultidisciplinary Cardiovascular Research Centre & The Division of Biomedical Imaging, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
John P GreenwoodMultidisciplinary Cardiovascular Research Centre & The Division of Biomedical Imaging, Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. j.greenwood@leeds.ac.uk.
University of Leeds · GBLeeds General Infirmary · GB

Funding

Department of Health RTF/01/014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssessment of left main stem (LMS) stenosis has prognostic and therapeutic implications. Data on assessment of LMS disease by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) are limited. CE-MARC is the largest prospective comparison of CMR and SPECT against quantitative invasive coronary angiography (QCA) for detection of coronary artery disease (CAD), and provided the framework for this evaluation. The aims of this study were to compare diagnostic accuracy of visual and quantitative perfusion CMR to SPECT in patients with LMS stable CAD.

methodsFifty-four patients from the CE-MARC study were included: 27 (4%) with significant LMS or LMS-equivalent disease on QCA, and 27 age/sex-matched patients with no flow-limiting CAD. All patients underwent multi-parametric CMR, SPECT and QCA. Performance of visual and quantitative perfusion CMR by Fermi-constrained deconvolution to detect LMS disease was compared with SPECT.

resultsOf 27 patients in the LMS group, 22 (81%) had abnormal CMR and 16 (59%) had abnormal SPECT. All patients with abnormal CMR had abnormal perfusion by visual analysis. CMR demonstrated significantly higher area under the curve (AUC) for detection of disease (0.95; 0.85-0.99) over SPECT (0.63; 0.49-0.76) (p = 0.0001). Global mean stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) by CMR in LMS patients was significantly lower than controls (1.77 ± 0.72 ml/g/min vs. 3.28 ± 1.20 ml/g/min, p < 0.001). MBF of <2.08 ml/g/min had sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 85% for diagnosis of LMS disease, with an AUC (0.87; 0.75-0.94) not significantly different to visual CMR analysis (p = 0.18), and more accurate than SPECT (p = 0.003).

conclusionVisual stress perfusion CMR had higher diagnostic accuracy than SPECT to detect LMS disease. Quantitative perfusion CMR had similar performance to visual CMR perfusion analysis.

Indexed as

Coronary CirculationMagnetic Resonance Imaging, CineTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonAgedArea Under CurveCase-Control StudiesContrast MediaCoronary AngiographyCoronary Artery DiseaseCoronary StenosisCoronary VesselsFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedContrast MediaCardiovascular magnetic resonanceCoronary artery diseaseLeft main stem diseaseQuantitative perfusionSPECT

Identifiers

PMID29110669
PMCPMC5674685
OpenAlexW2767542712

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.