ArticleJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology2022
Absolute Resting
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 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.
- The prognostic value of quantitative myocardial blood flow and flow reserve by dynamic CZT-SPECT for major adverse cardiovascular events.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Article
- Assessment of resting myocardial blood flow in regions of known transmural scar to confirm accuracy and precision of 3D cardiac positron emission tomography.EJNMMI research · 2023Article
- Evolving use of PET viability imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
- Late metabolic trapping ofJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the feasibility of resting myocardial blood flow (rMBF), quantified with dynamic 13 N-Ammonia (NH
methodsNinety-three patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and chronic LVEF < 45%, scheduled for CABG, had dynamic
resultsMean rMBFs were significantly different (N=0.60±0.14; M1=0.44±0.07, M2=0.34±0.08, RM=0.53±0.09 ml/min/g, P<0.001). The optimal rMBF cutoff to identify viable myocardium was 0.42 ml/min/g (sensitivity=88.3%, specificity=82.0%) and 0.43 ml/min/g for predicting improvement of LVEF ≥8% (74.6%, 80.0%). The extent and rMBF of combined M1/RM demonstrated a moderate to high correlation to improved LVEF (r=0.78, 0.71, P<0.001).
conclusionResting MBF, derived by dynamic
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.