Observational studyTexas Heart Institute journal2018
Prognostic Performance of Prospective versus Retrospective Electrocardiographic Gating in Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography.
Observational study in Texas Heart Institute journal, 2018. 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.
- Optimization of acquisition phase and acquisition time window of coronary artery CT angiography with different heart rates based on prospective ECG-gating.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Optimization of Retrospective Gated-ECG Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography by Dose Reduction in Patients with Different Body Mass Indexes.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) with prospective electrocardiographic gating reduces radiation exposure, but its prognostic power for predicting cardiovascular risk in patients with suspected CAD has not been fully validated. To determine whether prospective gating performs as well as retrospective gating in this population, we compared these scan modes in patients undergoing 64-slice CCTA. From January 2009 through September 2011, 1,407 patients underwent CCTA; of these, 915 (mean age, 57.8 ± 13.5 yr; 54% male) had suspected coronary artery disease at the time of CCTA and were included in the study. Prospective gating was used in 195 (21%) and retrospective gating in 720 (79%). The mean follow-up duration was 2.4 ± 0.9 years. Overall, 390 patients (42.6%) had normal results on CCTA, 382 (41.7%) had nonobstructive coronary artery disease, and 143 (15.6%) had obstructive disease. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 32 patients (3.5%): 11 cardiac deaths, 15 late revascularizations, and 6 nonfatal myocardial infarctions. Total event occurrences were similar in both groups (retrospective, 3.8%; prospective, 2.6%;
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.