ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2019
Long-Term Prognostic Value of Stress Perfusion Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Absence of long-term incremental prognostic value of inducible wall motion abnormalities on dipyridamole stress CMR in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease.European radiology · 2025Article
- The additive prognostic value of end-systolic pressure-volume relation by stress CMR in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
- Quantitative Flow Ratio Is Associated with Extent and Severity of Ischemia in Non-Culprit Lesions of Patients with Myocardial Infarction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe purpose of this review is to analyze the long-term prognostic value of stress perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients with suspected or known coronary artery disease (CAD). RECENT
findingsStress perfusion CMR provides high diagnostic accuracy for detection of CAD, with high sensitivity and relatively lower specificity. A normal stress perfusion CMR examination is highly predictive of overall low patient risk. Conversely, abnormal stress perfusion CMR results are associated with mortality and increased risk for adverse cardiac-related events. Stress perfusion CMR is a useful and robust tool for risk reclassification across different CAD risk categories, and most significant for patients of intermediate risk. Stress CMR is reliable for excluding clinically significant coronary artery disease in patients presenting with low-risk acute chest pain. An ischemic burden threshold of less than 1.5 cardiac segments has been found to be most appropriate for safe deferral from revascularization therapy. A stress perfusion CMR-guided strategy has been shown to be noninferior compared to fractional flow reserve (FFR) for revascularization in patients with stable CAD. In clinical practice, CMR offers a multiplicity of useful techniques besides stress perfusion which may add significant prognostic value when combined with the findings of the stress test itself. Stress perfusion CMR is an accurate noninvasive diagnostic test for patients with suspected CAD and provides strong prognostic value across different risk categories.
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.