ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2021
Multimodality Imaging of Myocardial Viability.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac Screening in Young Athletes: The Role of Diagnostics in Preventing Sudden Cardiac Death and Exploring Clearance Protocols.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Can multiparametric FDG-PET/MRI analysis really enhance the prediction of myocardial recovery after CTO revascularization? A machine learning study.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2026Article
- Article
- Revascularization and Left Ventricular Dysfunction for ICD Eligibility.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Tracers for Cardiac Imaging: Targeting the Future of Viable Myocardium.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Predicting left ventricular functional recovery in ischaemic cardiomyopathy: needs and challenges.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Myocardial Revascularization in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: For Whom and How.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2023Review
- Surveillance of adenosine stress myocardial contrast echocardiography following percutaneous coronary intervention.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewMyocardial viability is an important pathophysiologic concept which may have significant clinical impact in patients with left ventricular dysfunction due to ischemic heart disease. Understanding the imaging modalities used to assess viability, and the clinical implication of their findings, is critical for clinical decision-making in this population. RECENT
findingsThe ability of dobutamine echocardiography, single-photon emission computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging to predict functional recovery following revascularization is well-established. Despite different advantages and disadvantages for each imaging modality, each modality has demonstrated reasonable performance characteristics in identifying viable myocardium. Recent data, however, has called into question whether this functional recovery leads to improved clinical outcomes. Although the assessment of viability can be used to aid in clinical decision-making prior to revascularization, its broad application to all patients is limited by a lack of data confirming improvement in clinical outcomes. Thus, viability assessments may be best applied to select patients (such as those with increased surgical risk) and integrated with clinical, laboratory, and imaging data to guide clinical care. Future research efforts should be aimed at establishing the impact of viability on clinical outcomes.
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.