ReviewHerz2020
After ISCHEMIA: Is cardiac MRI a reliable gatekeeper for invasive angiography and myocardial revascularization?
Review in Herz, 2020. 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recent Progress of Cardiac MRI for Nuclear Medicine Professionals.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review surveys the findings of the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial and puts them into a clinical perspective regarding its effect of the role of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) as a well-validated gatekeeper for invasive angiography and myocardial revascularization. Noninvasive stress testing of patients with intermediate-to-high pretest likelihood for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) using perfusion CMR provides excellent diagnostic accuracy in detecting ischemic myocardium, and additional information from tissue characterization can guide the management of patients with stable angina toward a more individualized therapy as other non-coronary underlying causes of chest pain can be detected. Since ISCHEMIA failed to show that an invasive strategy using percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with an improved prognosis compared with initial conservative medical therapy among stable patients with moderate-to-severe ischemia, CMR as a multifaceted diagnostic imaging approach to explain patients' symptoms should be preferred over anatomical and stress testing alone. Nevertheless, the exclusion of left main coronary artery stenosis either by coronary CT or MR angiography may be required. In conclusion, the results of the ISCHEMIA trial are in good accordance with those of the MR-INFORM trial recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, as the noninvasive management of a large proportion of patients with CAD was shown to be noninferior to current invasive strategies. Recent outcome data from trials may therefore have an impact on future guidelines to further reduce the execution of unnecessary left heart catheterizations.
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.