ReviewNuclear medicine and molecular imaging2024
Reassessing the Role of Ischemia Imaging: Insights from the ISCHEMIA Trial.
Review in Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Standard Visual and Ordinal Coronary Calcium Scoring on PET/CT: Agreement with Agatston Scoring and Prognostic Implications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ischemia imaging plays an important role in prognostication as well as guiding decision for revascularization with known CAD, as shown in multiple observational registries. However, results from the ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) presented conflicting results, hinting at no survival benefit after revascularization in patients with moderate to severe ischemia on nuclear imaging. More recent analysis from the trial did, however, show decrease in cardiac mortality and increase in non-cardiac mortality following early revascularization. However, the ISCHEMIA trial has several limitations; most importantly, the trial design does not support a comparison between imaging modalities. Additionally, results of the trial do not apply to patients with previous CABG or ACS as they are exclusion criteria, which affects the diagnostic accuracy of nuclear stress imaging. Observational imaging registries offer better evidence about the accuracy of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET) in guiding revascularization for patients with ischemia. Results from ISCHEMIA trial can be used to guide management of patients with severe to moderate ischemia, provided they meet inclusion criteria. For those who do, shared decision-making is important to decide between invasive management or optimal medical therapy only.
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.