ArticleJournal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance2020
Clinical outcomes after primary prevention defibrillator implantation are better predicted when the left ventricular ejection fraction is assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac MRI: a pivotal tool for the management of cardiomyopathy.Future cardiology · 2025Article
- The Role of Multimodality Imaging in Cardiomyopathy.Current cardiology reports · 2024Review
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Heart Failure.Cardiovascular innovations and applications · 2024Article
- Utilities and Limitations of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Dilated Cardiomyopathy.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Cardiac magnetic resonance outperforms echocardiography to predict subsequent implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapies in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- 2021 - State of our JCMR.Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance · 2022Review
- Preliminary study on the diagnostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking for malignant ventricular arrhythmias in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is the key selection criterion for an implanted cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. LVEF is usually assessed by two-dimensional echocardiography, but cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is increasingly used. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether LVEF assessment using CMR imaging (CMR-LVEF) or two-dimensional echocardiography (2D echo-LVEF) may predict differently the occurrence of clinical outcomes.
methodsIn this retrospective study, we reviewed patients referred for primary prevention ICD implantation to Caen University Hospital from 2005 to 2014. We included 173 patients with either ischemic (n = 120) or dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 53) and who had undergone pre-ICD CMR imaging. The primary composite end point was the time to death from any cause or first appropriate device therapy.
resultsThe mean CMR-LVEF was significantly lower than the mean 2D echo-LVEF (24% ± 6 vs 28% ± 6, respectively; p < 0.001). CMR-LVEF was a better independent predictive factor for the occurrence of the primary composite endpoint with a cut-off value of 22% (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 2.22; 95% CI [1.34-3.69]; p = 0.002) than 2D echo-LVEF with a cut-off value of 26% (HR = 1.61; 95% CI [0.99-2.61]; p = 0.056). Combination of the presence of scar with CMR-LVEF< 22% improved the predictive value for the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR = 2.58; 95% CI [1.54-4.30]; p < 0.001). The overall survival was higher among patients with CMR-LVEF≥22% than among patients with CMR-LVEF< 22% (p = 0.026), whereas 2D echo-LVEF was not associated with death.
conclusionsCMR-LVEF is better associated with clinical outcomes than 2D echo-LVEF in primary prevention using an ICD. Scar identification further improved the outcome prediction. The combination of CMR imaging and echocardiography should be encouraged in addition to other risk markers to better select patients.
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.