ArticleScientific reports2017
Redefining viability by cardiovascular magnetic resonance in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05374265 (Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Guided Open Artery Trial for Revascularization of Late Presenting ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Guided Open Artery Trial for Revascularization of Late Presenting ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The CRM-OAT Pilot Trial
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic importance of glycemic variability on left ventricular reverse remodeling after the first episode of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2023Article
- Transmural Extent of Hyperenhancement in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An Unreliable Measure of Acute Viability.JACC. Advances · 2023Article
- Assessment of myocardial viability by cardiac MRI.Current opinion in cardiology · 2019Review
- Interrogation of the infarcted and salvaged myocardium using multi-parametric mapping cardiovascular magnetic resonance in reperfused ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Native T1 mapping to detect extent of acute and chronic myocardial infarction: comparison with late gadolinium enhancement technique.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In chronic myocardial infarction (MI), segments with a transmural extent of infarct (TEI) of ≤50% are defined as being viable. However, in the acute phase of an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) has been demonstrated to overestimate MI size and TEI. We aimed to identify the optimal cut-off of TEI by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for defining viability during the acute phase of an MI, using ≤50% TEI at follow-up as the reference standard. 40 STEMI patients reperfused by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) underwent a CMR at 4 ± 2 days and 5 ± 2 months. The large majority of segments with 1-25%TEI and 26-50%TEI that were viable acutely were also viable at follow-up (59/59, 100% and 75/82, 96% viable respectively). 56/84(67%) segments with 51-75%TEI but only 4/63(6%) segments with 76-100%TEI were reclassified as viable at follow-up. TEI on the acute CMR scan had an area-under-the-curve of 0.87 (95% confidence interval of 0.82 to 0.91) and ≤75%TEI had a sensitivity of 98% but a specificity of 66% to predict viability at follow-up. Therefore, the optimal cut-off by CMR during the acute phase of an MI to predict viability was ≤75% TEI and this would have important implications for patients undergoing viability testing prior to revascularization during the acute phase.
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.