ArticleKorean circulation journal2025
Is Any ABCDE Stress Echocardiography Score Equivalent to Stress-Induced Ischaemia? Reply With a Modified 2-Stage Approach.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2025. 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.
- Prognostic value of adenosine stress echocardiography in chronic coronary syndromes with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.Cardiovascular ultrasound · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stress echocardiography has evolved from the sole assessment of regional wall motion abnormalities (RWMAs) to the ABCDE protocol, as recommended by the recent clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, reflecting the need for a more systematic patient assessment. Steps A, B, C, D, and E assess RWMAs, lung B-lines, left ventricular contractile reserve, coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) in mid-distal left anterior descending artery, and heart rate reserve, respectively. Impairment of CFVR is considered as the earliest abnormality in the ischaemic cascade. While mostly steps A and D have been studied for their relation to obstructive and non-obstructive coronary artery disease, the diagnostic accuracy of steps B, C, and E for chronic coronary syndromes (CCSs) remains unknown, particularly in the context of negative steps A and D. Additionally, while ABCDE steps have been studied for their prognostic significance, there is no evidence of patients management based on this protocol in order to change the estimated risk. These concepts could be depicted in a 2-stage approach. A negative stage 1 (no stress-induced RWMAs as assessed in step A and normal CFVR as assessed in step D) imply good prognosis and non-coronary causes of symptoms should be considered, whereas guidelines for CCSs should be followed in a positive stage 1. Stage 2 includes steps B, C, and E, for further risk stratification or symptoms assessment, but it lacks evidence-based risk-modifying management and is mainly useful when stage 1 is negative and a cardiac origin of symptoms is still suspected.
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.