ArticleEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2025
European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging survey on imaging for myocardial viability.
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. 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.
- Multimodality Cardiovascular Imaging in Patients After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Diagnosis and Risk Stratification.Diagnostics (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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: To evaluate the current role and practice patterns in myocardial viability assessment through a European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) survey. Methods and results: A total of 179 participants from 54 countries completed the survey. Most participants worked in tertiary centres (60.3%). Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) was the most widely available modality (98.3%), followed by stress echocardiography (86.6%), cardiac computed tomography angiography (87.7%), and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR, 84.9%). Single-photon emission computed tomography and positron emission tomography were less accessible (59.8 and 40.2%, respectively). CMR was the preferred imaging modality (76.0%), followed by TTE (41.9%), which were also the most frequently used techniques in clinical practice (42.7 and 38.7%, respectively). Viability imaging was regularly used by most respondents in patients with chronic ischaemic heart disease (57.0%) and prior to revascularization for chronic total occlusions (58.7%). Among late-presenting ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients, 60.7% of respondents assessed viability within index hospitalization or the first month, whereas 28.3% performed viability imaging after 1-3 months. However, considerable variation exists between respondents. Revascularization decisions were guided by viability findings with revascularization of only viable segments in 49.1% of cases, while 40.0% reported revascularizing all high-grade stenoses if any viable myocardium was present. Conclusion: This study highlights the variability in myocardial viability imaging practices across Europe, with differences in availability, preferred modalities, and clinical application. While CMR and TTE remain the dominant modalities, standardization of imaging protocols and further research are needed to optimize viability assessment and its impact on revascularization decisions.
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.