ArticleEuropean heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology2023
In search of new gatekeepers: coronary CT (Computed Tomography) in acute coronary syndrome.
Article in European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing coronary computed tomography angiography for suspected acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Article
- Hemodynamic Study of Plaque Progression and Regression Based on Coronary CTA Imaging using Computational Fluid Dynamics Method: Preliminary Results.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2026Article
- Predictive value of change in percent calcified plaque burden based on serial coronary computed tomographic angiography for cardiovascular events.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Utility of Cardiovascular CT in Ischemic Heart Disease.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary computed tomography (CCT) is a non-invasive imaging method that allows visualization of the epicardial coronary arteries. The diagnostic and prognostic role of CCT has been demonstrated by various randomized trials to such an extent that it has been included as a Class I, level of evidence B recommendation in the latest European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the diagnosis of chronic coronary syndrome in patients at intermediate-low cardiovascular risk. In addition to the anatomical evaluation, the CCT allows to evaluate the presence of high-risk characteristics of the atherosclerotic plaque (napkin-ring sign, positive remodelling, spotty calcification, and low-attenuation plaque), thus discriminating the stability of the atheromatous pathology. Furthermore, among the potential of cardiac CT in the emergency department, the possibility of making a triple rule-out must be underlined, excluding three potential big killers as the cause of acute chest pain: acute coronary syndrome, pulmonary embolism, and aortic dissection. Various randomized clinical studies have demonstrated that the prognosis of the patient with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) improves only if a haemodynamically significant stenosis is treated, generally investigated with invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR); CCT technological advances have made it possible to create an algorithm for calculating the FFR-CT, an index of haemodynamic significance of coronary stenosis, whose correlation with the invasive FFR data and, consequently, with the prognosis has been demonstrated of patients with CAD.
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.