ArticlePloS one2021
Patient factors and outcomes associated with discordance between quantitative and qualitative cardiac PET ischemia information.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of regional myocardial flow reserve measurements using Rubidium-82 PET : Disclosures none.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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCardiac PET can provide quantitative myocardial blood flow (MBF) estimates. The frequency and clinical significance of discordant ischemia information between quantitative and qualitative parameters is unclear.
methodsThis retrospective, cohort study analyzed 256 Rb-82 stress-rest PET/CT studies. Global MBF and myocardial flow reserve (MFR) were estimated in absolute units for quantitative results and sum-stress and difference scores were used for qualitative results. Four groups of patients were evaluated based on a specific definition of concordant and discordant quantitative and qualitative results.
results31% of cases demonstrated discordance. Factors associated with microvascular disease were more common in the groups with abnormal quantitative results, regardless of the qualitative findings. Patients with concordant abnormal results had a significantly increased risk of myocardial infarction, heart failure, percutaneous intervention, and all-cause-mortality at 1 year compared to patients with concordant normal results. In patients with discordant results of abnormal quantitative and normal qualitative findings, there was a higher prevalence of heart failure than in controls (12.5% vs 0%, p = 0.01).
conclusionsDiscordance in qualitative and quantitative ischemia measures from PET is common, and further study is needed to clarify its prognostic implications. Moreover, quantitative estimation of MBF and MFR appears to add value to qualitative visual interpretation by supporting qualitative findings when results are concordant. Abnormal quantitative findings, regardless of concordance or discordance with qualitative findings, occurred in patients with risk factors associated with diffuse disease and with increased risk of heart failure admission.
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.