ArticleHerz2019
Evaluation of myocardial viability in myocardial infarction patients by magnetic resonance perfusion and delayed enhancement imaging.
Article in Herz, 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.
- Coronary Microvascular Disease Early After Myocardial Infarction: Diagnostic Approach and Prognostic Value-A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Diagnostic accuracy of left atrial function and strain for differentiating between acute and chronic myocardial infarction.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- The predictive value of coronary microvascular dysfunction for left ventricular reverse remodelling in dilated cardiomyopathy.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Analysis of Characteristics of Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction by Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021Article
- Detection of Left Ventricular Thrombi on Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Viability Studies.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has been established as a modality to detect myocardial viability. The aim of this study was to evaluate myocardial viability by observing transmural extent of infraction and microvascular perfusion level.
methodsWe performed CMR in 30 myocardial infarction (MI) patients within 7-10 days. At the 6‑month follow-up, CMR was used to evaluate the impact of abnormal reperfusion and observe the transmural extent of infraction on recovery of function.
resultsThe left ventricle was divided into 16 segments using the American Heart Association classification. Infarcts were detected in 202 of the 480 segments (42%) by delayed enhancement magnetic resonance imaging (DE-MRI). According to first-pass myocardial perfusion, abnormal perfusion was detected in 278 of 480 segments (60%), reduced perfusion was identified in 173 of 278 (62%), and perfusion defects in 105 of 278 segments (38%). The results showed that the segments with abnormal perfusion were larger than in DE-MRI (P < 0.05), indicating that the area of abnormal perfusion segments extend significantly beyond the region of infarction. Microvascular perfusion with an infarcted region was lower compared to non-infarcted segments (P < 0.05). The extent of myocardial hyperenhancement correlated inversely with microvascular perfusion (P < 0.05). Segments with severe microvascular perfusion and >75% transmural infarction on the 7‑ to 10-day scan had markedly increased at the 6‑month follow-up (P < 0.01), indicating a lack of recovery of cardiac function.
conclusionsDE-MRI combined with microvascular perfusion may be effective to detect viable myocardium in patients with MI and may provide a means of predicting whether revascularization will be effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30324340What 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.