ArticleCureus2022
The Relationship Between Coronary Dominance and Positive Results in Myocardial Perfusion Imaging.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Our study aims to evaluate the possible relationship between coronary artery dominance and its effect on accurately identifying reversible ischemia of inferior/inferior-lateral wall on cardiac perfusion imaging. Background Coronary artery dominance is conventionally defined by the vessel which gives the rise to the AV nodal artery/posterior descending artery (PDA). Previous studies have explored the potential effect of coronary dominance on the accuracy of single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) tests in detecting inferior/inferior-lateral wall ischemia; further evidence is necessary to study that potential effect. Methods We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis to explore the potential relationship between coronary artery dominance and inferior/inferior-lateral wall ischemia on SPECT imaging. We identified a cohort of patients with a reversible defect(s) in the inferior and/or inferolateral walls on SPECT MPI who had subsequently undergone invasive coronary angiography. Coronary angiography was used to determine coronary dominance and to confirm the presence/absence of obstructive coronary artery disease in the distribution of the inferior and/or inferolateral wall(s). We correlated the findings on SPECT MPI to coronary angiography to identify true positives and false positive MPIs. Results A cohort of 200 patients was identified, patients in the cohort had undergone stress MPI with reversible defects with subsequent invasive coronary angiography. Baseline characteristics including age, BMI and sex were fairly well-balanced between the groups. The mean age was 68 +/- 11 in the right dominant group and 70 +/- 9 in the non right dominant group. One hundred and sixty-one patients (81%) were found to have right dominant circulation and 39 patients (19%) were found to have left or codominant circulation. Of the 161 patients in the right dominant group, 58 patients (36%) were found to have false positive stress MPI. Of the 39 patients in the left or codominant group, 23 patients (59%) were found to have false positive stress MPI. The incidence of false positive stress MPI in the inferior and inferolateral distribution is significantly higher in patients with non-right dominant coronary anatomy (p-value: 0.01). Conclusion Non-right coronary dominant anatomy could have high false positive MPI results in the inferior and inferolateral distribution. Therefore, the interpreting clinicians should exercise caution during the clinical evaluation of these patients.
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.