ReviewIndian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2018
Viability testing to guide myocardial revascularisation in patients with heart failure.
Review in Indian journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adenosine FDG PET/CT reveals potentially viable myocardium in ischemic cardiomyopathy.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- A Feasibility Study of [Molecular imaging and biology · 2024Article
- A feasibility study of [18F]F-AraG positron emission tomography (PET) for cardiac imaging - myocardial viability in ischemia-reperfusion injury model.Research square · 2024Article
- Myocardial Viability Testing in the Management of Ischemic Heart Failure.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myocardial revascularisation has the potential to restore ventricular function and improve survival in patients with heart failure due to underlying coronary artery disease. Viability testing is routinely used to identify which patients are likely to benefit, given that revascularisation may entail substantial procedural risk. However, while the concept of viability testing and revascularisation of patients with 'hibernating myocardium' is strongly supported by observational series, randomised studies have failed to demonstrate clear benefit. This divergence in the evidence base is reflected in current European and US guidelines, in which viability testing has a class II recommendation. In this article, we review the current evidence for routine viability testing prior to revascularisation of patients with heart failure, outline its use in clinical practice and discuss ongoing trials in the field.
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.