ArticleMedicine2018
3.0T Contrast-enhanced whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography for simultaneous coronary artery angiography and myocardial viability in chronic myocardial infarction: A single-center preliminary study.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of whole heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2023Pooled it
- Using path analysis to investigate the relationships between depression, anxiety, and health-related quality of life among patients with coronary artery disease.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced whole-heart magnetic resonance coronary angiography at 3.0T for assessing significant stenosis (≥50% lumen diameter reduction) in patients with myocardial infarction, by using conventional coronary artery angiography as the reference standard, and also test the performance of that for the detection and assessment of chronic myocardial infarction (MI), compared with standard delayed-enhancement coronary magnetic resonance (DE-CMR) for the determination of infarct size.We studied 42 consecutive patients (37 men, 5 women, mean age 58.5 ± 10.7 years) with MI scheduled for conventional coronary angiography. Contrast-enhanced whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA) was employed after sublingual nitroglycerin (NTG) with the abdominal banding rolled tightly along the side of ribs. Finally, a 3D phase-sensitive inversion-recovery gradient-echo (3D-PSIR-GRE) sequence was performed during free breathing. The assessment of MI sizes on WH-CMRA reconstructed images and 3D-PSIR-GRE images were compared using a paired student t test.The acquisition of CMRA was completed in 40 (95.2%) of 42 patients, with an imaging time averaged at 9.5 ± 3.1 minutes. The average navigator efficiency was 47%. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of whole-heart CMRA for the detection of significant lesions on a segment-by-segment analysis were 91.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83.8-96.1), 84.0% (95% CI 80.0-87.4), 57.9% (95% CI 50.0-65.8), 97.7% (95% CI 95.3-98.9), respectively, and on a patient-based analysis 93.5% (95% CI 77.2-98.9), 88.9% (95% CI 50.7-99.4), 96.7% (95% CI 80.9-99.8), and 80.0% (95% CI 44.2-96.5), respectively. Infarcts were generally higher on the CE-CMRA technique compared with the standard technique (18.0 ± 7.2 cm vs 16.1 ± 6.4 cm; P < .0001).Contrast-enhanced whole-heart CMRA with 3.0-T not only may permit reliable detection of significant obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with myocardial infarction, but also could identify and quantify the volume of myocardial infarction. This technique could be considered the preferred approach in patients who could not overcome longer scanning times or unable to hold their breath instead of delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging for detection of infarcted myocardium. However, compared with standard imaging, the volume of myocardial infarction is slightly overestimated.
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.