ArticleScientific reports2021
Sudden cardiac death risk in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: comparison between echocardiography and magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experiences in cardiovascular screening of professional athletes using echocardiography and electrocardiography at Jakaya Kikwete Cardiac Institute in Tanzania- a cross-sectional observational study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Observational
- The Role of Nt-Pro-Bnp in Predicting Outcome in Pediatric Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy.Pediatric cardiology · 2025Article
- Echocardiographic Updates in the Assessment of Cardiomyopathy.Current cardiology reports · 2025Review
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Heart Failure.Cardiovascular innovations and applications · 2024Article
- Magnetic Resonance Left Ventricle Mass-Index/Fibrosis: Long-Term Predictors for Ventricular Arrhythmia in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy-A Retrospective Registry.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) patients, left ventricular (LV) maximal wall thickness (MWT) is one of the most important factors determining sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk. In a large unselected sample of HCM patients, we aimed to simulate what changes would occur in the calculated SCD risk according to the European HCM Risk-SCD calculator when MWT measured using echocardiography was changed to MWT measured using MRI. All consecutive patients with HCM who underwent cardiac MRI were included. MWT measured with echocardiography and MRI were compared, and 5-year SCD risk according to the HCM Risk-SCD calculator was computed using four different models. The final population included 673 patients [389 (57.8%) males, median age 50 years, interquartile range (36-60)]. The median MWT was lower measured by echocardiography than by MRI [20 (17-24) mm vs 21 (18-24) mm; p < 0.0001]. There was agreement between echocardiography and MRI in the measurement of maximal LV wall thickness in 96 patients (14.3%). The largest differences between echo and MRI were - 13 mm and + 9 mm. The differences in MWT by echocardiography and MRI translated to a maximal difference of 8.33% in the absolute 5-year risk of SCD, i.e., the echocardiography-based risk was 8.33% lower than the MRI-based estimates. Interestingly, 13.7% of patients would have been reclassified into different SCD risk categories if MRI had been used to measure MWT instead of echocardiography. In conclusion, although there was high general intermodality agreement between echocardiography and MRI in the MWT measurements, the differences in MWT translated to significant differences in the 5-year risk of SCD.
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.