Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31401672›Full record

Trial reportClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2020

Adenosine stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients undergoing intracoronary bone marrow cell transfer after ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the BOOST-2 perfusion substudy.

Andreas Seitz, Kai C Wollert, Gerd P Meyer, Jochen Müller-Ehmsen, Carsten Tschöpe, Andreas E May, Klaus Empen, Emmanuel Chorianopoulos, Benedikta Ritter, Jens Pirr and 12 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Andreas SeitzDepartment of Cardiology, Robert-Bosch-Medical Centre, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3140-3115
Kai C WollertDepartment of Cardiology and Angiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Gerd P MeyerDepartment of Cardiology and Angiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Jochen Müller-EhmsenDepartment of Cardiology, University Heart Centre Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Carsten TschöpeDepartment of Cardiology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany.
Andreas E MayDepartment of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Tübingen, Otfried-Müller-Straße 10, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Klaus EmpenDepartment of Cardiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Emmanuel ChorianopoulosDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology, and Pneumology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Benedikta RitterDepartment of Cardiology and Angiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Jens PirrDepartment of Cardiology and Angiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Lubomir ArsenievCellular Therapy Centre, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Hans-Gert HeuftInstitute for Transfusion Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Arnold GanserDepartment of Haematology, Haemostasis, Oncology, and Stem Cell Transplantation, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Eed Abu-ZaidDepartment of Cardiology, Robert-Bosch-Medical Centre, Stuttgart, Germany.
Hugo A KatusDepartment of Cardiology, Angiology, and Pneumology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stephan B FelixDepartment of Cardiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Meinrad P GawazDepartment of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Tübingen, Otfried-Müller-Straße 10, 72076, Tübingen, Germany.
Heinz-Peter SchultheissDepartment of Cardiology, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany.
Dennis LadageDepartment of Cardiology, University Heart Centre Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Johann BauersachsDepartment of Cardiology and Angiology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Heiko MahrholdtDepartment of Cardiology, Robert-Bosch-Medical Centre, Stuttgart, Germany.
Simon GreulichDepartment of Cardiology, Robert-Bosch-Medical Centre, Stuttgart, Germany. simon.greulich@med.uni-tuebingen.de.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DERobert Bosch Hospital · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEHeidelberg University · DEUniversitätsmedizin Greifswald · DEUniversity Hospital Cologne · DEUniversity of Tübingen · DE

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DR 148/13-1 [Programme Clinical Trials]
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsIn the placebo-controlled, double-blind BOne marrOw transfer to enhance ST-elevation infarct regeneration (BOOST) 2 trial, intracoronary autologous bone marrow cell (BMC) transfer did not improve recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and moderately reduced LVEF. Regional myocardial perfusion as determined by adenosine stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (S-CMR) may be more sensitive than global LVEF in detecting BMC treatment effects. Here, we sought to evaluate (i) the changes of myocardial perfusion in the infarct area over time (ii) the effects of BMC therapy on infarct perfusion, and (iii) the relation of infarct perfusion to LVEF recovery at 6 months. METHODS AND

resultsIn 51 patients from BOOST-2 (placebo, n = 10; BMC, n = 41), S-CMR was performed 5.1 ± 2.9 days after PCI (before placebo/BMC treatment) and after 6 months. Infarct perfusion improved from baseline to 6 months in the overall patient cohort as reflected by the semi-quantitative parameters, perfusion defect-infarct size ratio (change from 0.54 ± 0.20 to 0.43 ± 0.22; P = 0.006) and perfusion defect-upslope ratio (0.54 ± 0.23 to 0.68 ± 0.22; P < 0.001), irrespective of randomised treatment. Perfusion defect-upslope ratio at baseline correlated with LVEF recovery (r = 0.62; P < 0.001) after 6 months, with a threshold of 0.54 providing the best sensitivity (79%) and specificity (74%) (area under the curve, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.92).

conclusionInfarct perfusion improves from baseline to 6 months and predicts LVEF recovery in STEMI patients undergoing early PCI. Intracoronary BMC therapy did not enhance infarct perfusion in the BOOST-2 trial.

Indexed as

Bone Marrow TransplantationMagnetic Resonance ImagingAdenosineAgedCohort StudiesDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPercutaneous Coronary InterventionSensitivity and SpecificityST Elevation Myocardial InfarctionStroke VolumeTreatment OutcomeVasodilator AgentsAdenosineVasodilator AgentsAdenosine stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance imagingBone marrow cell therapySt-elevation myocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID31401672
OpenAlexW2967638037

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.