ArticleOpen heart2025
Prognostic value of stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with ischaemic heart disease and severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.
Article in Open heart, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe concept of ischaemia for therapeutic guidance and risk stratification in coronary artery disease has been challenged in recent years. In particular, there is limited understanding of the prognostic value of ischaemia in patients with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (stress CMR) in patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and severely reduced LVEF.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with IHD and an LVEF ≤35% who underwent stress CMR between 2009 and 2022. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), including cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), survived sudden cardiac death and implanted cardioverter defibrillator shock for ventricular fibrillation. The secondary combined endpoint included heart failure hospitalisation, percutaneous coronary intervention, arrhythmia and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). All-cause death was also documented.
resultsThe study population consisted of 362 patients (85.6% men, 70.5 (63.0-78.0) years) with an LVEF of 30.2% (25.2%-33.0%). 245 patients (67.6%) had three vessel disease, 206 patients (57.2%) had a history of MI and 83 patients (22.9%) had a history of CABG. Stress CMR showed ischaemia in 72 (19.9%) patients. Among those, 32 patients (8.8%) underwent early revascularisation. Follow-up was 4.5 (3.0-6.6) years. MACE occurred in 101 patients (27.9%), including 41 cases of cardiac death (11.3%) and 40 cases of MI (11.0%). Ischaemia was not significantly associated with MACE, the combined secondary endpoint, or all-cause death in survival analysis (HR for MACE 1.20, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.95, p=0.4).
conclusionIn a cohort of patients with IHD and severely reduced LVEF, outcome did not differ when stratifying by ischaemia on stress CMR. We found no evidence that ischaemia could identify patients with increased risk for MACE, the combined secondary endpoint or all-cause death.
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.