ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2022
Comparison of Diagnostic Value Between STE+LDDSE and CMR-FT for Evaluating Coronary Microvascular Obstruction in Post-PCI Patients for STEMI.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Applications of Speckle Tracking Echocardiography in Stress Echocardiography: A Systematic Review on Feasibility, Diagnostic, and Clinical Utility.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2025Pooled it
- Direct comparison of coronary microvascular obstruction evaluation using CMR feature tracking and layer-specific speckle tracking echocardiography in STEMI patients.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Coronary microvascular obstruction (CMVO) is closely associated with poor prognosis of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. However, data showing the comparison between cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking (CMR-FT) and speckle tracking echocardiography (STE) combined with low-dose dobutamine stress echocardiography (LDDSE) in evaluating CMVO was scarcely available. We aimed to explore and compare the predictive value between CMR-FT and STE+LDDSE in detecting CMVO. Methods: Sixty-one STEMI patients were executed cardiac magnetic resonance and echocardiography within the first 5-7 days after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The myocardial strain analysis was performed in STE, STE+LDDSE, and CMR-FT, and strain parameters included radial strain (RS), circumferential strain (CS), and longitudinal strain (LS). ROC curves were performed to predict infarcted myocardium segments with CMVO. Results: Finally, 324 infarcted myocardium segments were analyzed, including 100 infarcted segments with CMVO and 224 segments without CMVO by the gold standard assessment of late gadolinium-enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (LGE-CMR). The results showed that CS was generally superior to RS and LS in identifying CMVO. CS in CMR-FT facilitated the detection of CMVO, with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 78.00%, 81.25%, and 80.25%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CS in STE combined with LDDSE were better than STE alone (76.00% vs 60.00%, 79.91% vs 64.29%, and 78.70% vs 62.96%, Conclusion: Low-dose dobutamine can improve the clinical value of STE for evaluating CMVO in STEMI patients. Compared with CMR-FT, STE+LDDSE might be a better choice for STEMI patients because of its safety, convenience, and low-cost.
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.