Trial reportMedicine2019
Evaluation of myocardial viability in patients with acute myocardial infarction: Layer-specific analysis of 2-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography.
Trial report in Medicine, 2019. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of myocardial perfusion and systolic function in patients with coronary heart disease by myocardial contrast echocardiography and 2-dimensional speckle tracking imaging.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2021Article
- The complex role of cardiovascular imaging in viability testing.Progress in cardiovascular diseasesReview
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe value of layer-specific two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (LS2D-STE) for evaluating viable myocardium (VM) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) was unclear, this study provides new insights into it and to make a comparison with dualisotope simultaneous acquisition single photon emission computed tomography ( DISA-SPECT).
methodsForty hospitalized patients with AMI and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction <50%) underwent LS2D-STE and DISA-SPECT before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The longitudinal, circumferential, and radial peak systolic strains and the peak systolic strain rates of 3 myocardiallayers (endocardium, mid-myocardium, and epicardium), as well as the total wall thickness, were determined by LS2D-STE. Routine echocardiography was followedup at 1, 3, 6 months after PCI, with the improvement of the wall motion as the goldenstandard for evaluating VM.
resultsThe sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of DISA-SPECT for evaluating VM were 82.1%, 74.3%, and 79.3%, respectively. Among the layer-specific parameters, only endocardial (endo-) longitudinal strain (LS) and endo- longitudinal strain rate (LSr) were used as independent parameters for evaluating VM (P < .05), and the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of endo-LS and endo-LSr in evaluation of VM were 77.1%, 65.4%, and 72.9% vs 72.9%, 65.4%, and 69.7%. Endo-LS and endo-LSr were superior to total wall thickness LS and LSr (AUC endo-LS 0.767 vs total-LS 0.669; endo-LSr 0.743 vs total-LSr 0.682). The parallel test and the serial test of combination of endo-LS and endo-LSr showed similar sensitivity, specificity and accuracy to DISA-SPECT (P > .05).
conclusionThe endo-LS and endo-LSr analysis of LS2D-STE can evaluate the VM well, and its sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in detection of VM are similar to those of DISA-SPECT, resulting in LS2D-STE being a good option for the assessment of VM.
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.