ArticleEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2025
A comparison between 64-projection and 32-projection myocardial perfusion scintigraphy.
Article in European heart journal. Imaging methods and practice, 2025. 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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: While most clinical guidelines recommend using a 64-projection view technique, some protocols do not specify a preference between 32-projection and 64-projection methods for conducting myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS), which shows the lack of consensus in this matter. Nevertheless, these guidelines and protocols have not provided us with compelling evidence to support why the 64-projection technique is usually chosen. Thus, we aimed to determine if there is a significant difference between them in the assessment of cardiac perfusion and functional indices. Methods and results: Sixty-nine patients were included in this pilot prospective, cross-sectional, cross-over, same patient control protocol study and underwent 32- and 64-projection MPS at both stress and rest phases after injecting 740-925 MBq of 99mTc-MIBI for every patient. Then, cardiac indices, including summed stress, rest, and difference scores, extent-stress and rest, left ventricular volumes and ejection-fraction, peak filling rate (PFR), and time to peak filling rate (TTPF) were recorded. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient was used to assess the agreement between protocols, and a paired sample Conclusion: The findings suggest that lower-projection techniques could be adequate for routine clinical assessments without sacrificing diagnostic accuracy. However, the poor agreement for PFR and TTPF indicates that the 32-projection method may not reliably assess diastolic function, implying that the 64-projection protocol is preferable when precise evaluations are necessary.
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.