ReviewArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2019
Evaluation of Myocardial Perfusion by Computed Tomography - Principles, Technical Background and Recommendations.
Review in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Guideline of the Brazilian Society of Cardiology and the Brazilian College of Radiology - 2024.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2024Article
- A Review of the Roles and Limitations of Noninvasive Imaging Methods for Investigating Cardiovascular Disease in Individuals with Obesity.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2022Review
- One-Stop Shop for Non-Invasive Cardiovascular Imagers?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Article
- Lower Prevalence and Severity of Coronary Atherosclerosis in Chronic Chagas' Disease by Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
- Risk Factors for Acute Renal Failure after Cardiac Catheterization Most Cited in the Literature: An Integrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has gained a prominent role in the evaluation of coronary artery disease. However, its anatomical nature does not allow the evaluation of the functional repercussion of coronary obstructions. It has been made possible to evaluate Myocardial computed tomography perfusion (Myocardial CTP) recently, based on myocardial contrast changes related to coronary stenoses. Several studies have validated this technique against the anatomical reference method (cardiac catheterization) and other functional methods, including myocardial perfusion scintigraphy and fractional flow reserve. The Myocardial CTP is performed in conjunction with the CCTA, a combined analysis of anatomy and function. The stress phase (with assessment of myocardial perfusion) can be performed before or after the resting phase (assessment of resting perfusion and coronary arteries), and different acquisition parameters are proposed according to the protocol and type of equipment used. Stressors used are based on coronary vasodilation (e.g. dipyridamole, adenosine). Image interpretation, similar to other perfusion assessment methods, is based on the identification and quantification of myocardial perfusion defects. The integration of both perfusion and anatomical findings is fundamental for the examination interpretation algorithm, allowing to define if the stenoses identified are hemodynamically significant and may be related to myocardial ischemia.
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.