ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2019
Complete revascularization determined by myocardial perfusion imaging could improve the outcomes of patients with stable coronary artery disease, compared with incomplete revascularization and no revascularization.
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The utilization of myocardial perfusion imaging prior to coronary angiography to improve outcomes and cost-effectiveness of patients with stable coronary artery disease: a comparative cohort study in China.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Utility of Noninvasive Testing Before Invasive Coronary Angiography in the Assessment for Revascularization.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2025Article
- Prognostic value of the left ventricular ejection fraction reserve acquired by gated myocardial perfusion SPECT in patients with CAD and reduced stress LVEF.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Revascularization or medical therapy for stable coronary artery disease patients with different degrees of ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of myocardial perfusion.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2022Article
- Myocardial perfusion imaging prior to coronary revascularization: From risk stratification to procedure guidance.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the outcomes among patients treated by complete coronary revascularization (CCR) or incomplete coronary revascularization (ICR) and no coronary revascularization (NCR) by myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI), as well as to evaluate the impact of severity of ischemia on patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) by different therapy strategies.
backgroundUsing myocardial ischemia severity determined by MPI guiding treatment strategies for CAD patients still lacks strong clinical evidences.
methodsConsecutive patients (N = 286) underwent clinical stress-rest SPECT MPI and were retrospectively followed-up. For assessment of outcome of treatment, all patients were classified into three groups (CCR, ICR, and NCR), and further divided into two subgroups as mild ischemia (< 10% ischemic myocardium) and moderate-severe ischemia (≥ 10% ischemic myocardium). All-cause death was defined as the primary endpoint, and the composite of deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization (MACE) as the secondary endpoint.
resultsTwo-hundred eighty-six patients were followed-up for 46 ± 21 months. Thirty deaths and 65 MACEs were recorded. Patients treated by revascularization had significantly lower MACE (P < .001) but not mortality (P = .158) than patients treated by NCR. Outcomes of CCR related to mortality rate were greater than ICR and NCR (death: P = .019, MACE: P < .001). In patients with moderate-severe ischemia, CCR showed improved outcomes than ICR and NCR (death: P = .034; and MACE: P < .001). In patients with mild ischemia, the outcomes of CCR, ICR, and NCR had no significant difference (P > .05). Multivariate regression Cox analysis revealed that summed difference score [death: HR 1.09 (1.03, 1.15), P = .004] was an independent risk factor and CCR was an independent negative predictor [death: HR 0.31 (0.12, 0.81), P = .017; MACE: HR 0.30 (0.16, 0.57), P < .001].
conclusionsOutcomes of patients treated by CCR were most likely more promising in comparison with treatment of ICR and NCR, especially when patients had over 10% ischemic myocardium.
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.