Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30735566›Full record

ArticleJAMA cardiology2019

Prognostic Value of Vasodilator Stress Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Multicenter Study With 48 000 Patient-Years of Follow-up.

John F Heitner, Raymond J Kim, Han W Kim, Igor Klem, Dipan J Shah, Dany Debs, Afshin Farzaneh-Far, Venkateshwar Polsani, Jiwon Kim, Jonathan Weinsaft and 8 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Multiparametric exercise stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: the EMPIRE trial.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2021
    Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Heart Failure.Cardiovascular innovations and applications · 2024
    Article
  16. Improved robustness for deep learning-based segmentation of multi-center myocardial perfusion cardiovascular MRI datasets using data-adaptive uncertainty-guided space-time analysis.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2024
    Article
  17. The Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Registry at 150,000.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2024
    Article
  18. The reproducibility of breathing maneuvers as a vasoactive stimulus in the heart: an oxygenation-sensitive resonance imaging study.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

John F HeitnerNew York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, New York, New York.
Raymond J KimDuke Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Han W KimDuke Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Igor KlemDuke Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Dipan J ShahHouston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, Texas.
Dany DebsHouston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, Texas.
Afshin Farzaneh-FarUniversity of Illinois at Chicago.
Venkateshwar PolsaniPiedmont Atlanta Hospital, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jiwon KimWeill Cornell Medical Center, New York.
Jonathan WeinsaftWeill Cornell Medical Center, New York.
Chetan ShenoyUniversity of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis.
Andrew HughesUniversity of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis.
Preston CargileHeart Imaging Technologies, Durham, North Carolina.
Jean HoNew York Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, New York, New York.
Robert O BonowNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.
Elizabeth JenistaDuke Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Michele ParkerDuke Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Robert M JuddDuke Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Center, Durham, North Carolina.

Funding

CMR Myocardial Tissue Based Prediction of Ischemic MR Revascularization ResponseR01HL128278 · NHLBI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI WEINSAFT, JONATHAN W. · 2015 to 2019
$3.8M
Advanced CMR Tissue-Based Prediction of Right Ventricular Dysfunction and Revascularization ResponseK23HL140092 · NHLBI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI KIM, JIWON · 2018 to 2022
$847k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL140092NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL128278
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) is not widely used in current clinical practice, and its ability to predict patient mortality is unknown. Objective: To determine whether stress CMR is associated with patient mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Real-world evidence from consecutive clinically ordered CMR examinations. Multicenter study of patients undergoing clinical evaluation of myocardial ischemia. Patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) underwent clinical vasodilator stress CMR at 7 different hospitals. An automated process collected data from the finalized clinical reports, deidentified and aggregated the data, and assessed mortality using the US Social Security Death Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause patient mortality. Results: Of the 9151 patients, the median (interquartile range) patient age was 63 (51-70) years, 55% were men, and the median (interquartile range) body mass index was 29 (25-33) (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared). The multicenter automated process yielded 9151 consecutive patients undergoing stress CMR, with 48 615 patient-years of follow-up. Of these patients, 4408 had a normal stress CMR examination, 4743 had an abnormal examination, and 1517 died during a median follow-up time of 5.0 years. Using multivariable analysis, addition of stress CMR improved prediction of mortality in 2 different risk models (model 1 hazard ratio [HR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.63-2.06; P < .001; model 2: HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.60-2.03; P < .001) and also improved risk reclassification (net improvement: 11.4%; 95% CI, 7.3-13.6; P < .001). After adjustment for patient age, sex, and cardiac risk factors, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a strong association between an abnormal stress CMR and mortality in all patients (HR, 1.883; 95% CI, 1.680-2.112; P < .001), patients with (HR, 1.955; 95% CI, 1.712-2.233; P < .001) and without (HR, 1.578; 95% CI, 1.235-2.2018; P < .001) a history of CAD, and patients with normal (HR, 1.385; 95% CI, 1.194-1.606; P < .001) and abnormal left ventricular ejection fraction (HR, 1.836; 95% CI, 1.299-2.594; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Clinical vasodilator stress CMR is associated with patient mortality in a large, diverse population of patients with known or suspected CAD as well as in multiple subpopulations defined by history of CAD and left ventricular ejection fraction. These findings provide a foundational motivation to study the comparative effectiveness of stress CMR against other modalities.

Indexed as

AgedBody Mass IndexCoronary Artery DiseaseExercise TestFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHeartHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPredictive Value of TestsRisk FactorsStroke VolumeSurvival AnalysisVasodilator Agents

Identifiers

PMID30735566
PMCPMC6439546

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.