ArticleCardiology journal2024
Coronary vasospasm and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with isolated myocardial bridging: A retrospective study.
Article in Cardiology journal, 2024. 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.
- Prognostic impact of myocardial bridge on long-term mortality and morbidity: A meta-analysis and systematic review.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Pooled it
- Coronary Artery Spasm: From Physiopathology to Diagnosis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMounting evidence suggests an associated between myocardial bridging (MB) and coronary vasospasm (CVS); however, no consensus has been established on whether CVS worsens clinical outcomes in patients with MB. Therefore, this retrospective study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes in patients with MB based on CVS presence.
methodsThis retrospective study enrolled 254 consecutive patients with MB undergoing provocative testing for coronary reactivity between January 1, 2009 and December 30, 2015, and stratified them into 2 groups: (a) group A (with CVS, n = 168); and (b) group B (without CVS, n = 86). The primary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), a composite of cardiac death, cardiac arrest, non-fatal myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, ischemia-driven coronary angiography, and ischemia-related hospitalization. Diverse Cox models were used to determine whether CVS independently influenced MACE.
resultsThe mean age of study participants was 50.8 years, and 60.2% of them were male. The median follow-up period was 8.15 years. The rate of MACE was 35.1% and 26.7% in groups A and B, respectively. Group A had a significantly higher risk of MACE than group B (the reference group) in model 3 (hazard ratio [HR]:1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.12-3.29) and model 4 (adjusted HR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.04-3.59).
conclusionsThe presence of CVS adversely affects clinical outcomes in patients with MB. Further prospective clinical studies are required to confirm this association.
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.