ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2022
Quantitative myocardial perfusion
Article in Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Establishing normal myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve values: a rubidium-82 positron emission tomography study.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging to detect myocardial ischemia in patients with anxiety and obstructive coronary heart disease post-exposure to mental stressors.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The diagnostic role of resting myocardial blood flow in STEMI patients after revascularization.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Coronary artery calcium score and pre-test probabilities as gatekeepers to predict and rule out perfusion defects in positron emission tomography.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Article
- One stop non-invasive identification of culprit vessels and related ischemia in coronary artery bypass patient using combinedEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Measuring myocardial blood flow using dynamic myocardial perfusion SPECT: artifacts and pitfalls.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Review
- Comorbidities and cardiac symptoms can modify myocardial function regardless of ischemia: a cross-sectional study with PET/CT.Archivos de cardiologia de Mexico · 2023Article
- Danish study of Non-Invasive Testing in Coronary Artery Disease 3 (Dan-NICAD 3): study design of a controlled study on optimal diagnostic strategy.Open heart · 2023Article
- Review of cardiovascular imaging in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology 2022: positron emission tomography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2023Review
- The prognostic value of CZT SPECT myocardial blood flow (MBF) quantification in patients with ischemia and no obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA): a pilot study.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Article
- Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
- Sex Differences and Caffeine Impact in Adenosine-Induced Hyperemia.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to assess normal values for quantified myocardial blood flow (MBF) on a hybrid PET/coronary-CT scanner and to test their diagnostic performance in patients with suspected CAD. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients underwent
results357 consecutive patients were included. Global sMBF and MFR were higher in normal patients than in patients with CAD (3.61 ± 0.71 vs 3.04 ± 0.77, P < 0.0001; 3.08 ± 0.84 vs 2.68 ± 0.79, P = 0.0001), but not different compared to patients with non-obstructive stenosis (3.61 ± 0.71 vs 3.43 ± 0.69, P = 0.052; 3.08 ± 0.84 vs 2.99 ± 0.82, P = 0.45). sMBF yielded superior accuracy over MFR in identifying both ischemia (AUC 0.74 vs 0.62, P = 0.003) and severe ischemia (AUC 0.88 vs 0.78, P = 0.012). Optimal threshold for global sMBF to rule out myocardial ischemia was 3.5 mL g
conclusionsNormal quantitative values are provided. Global sMBF provided higher diagnostic accuracy than MFR. Using sMBF-threshold of 3.5 mL·g
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.