Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40874196›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Imaging methods and practice2025

European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging survey on imaging for myocardial viability.

V C Wilzeck, G E Mandoli, A Demirkiran, E Androulakis, H Soliman Aboumarie, A A Giannopoulos, S Joshi, S Bhattacharyya, J F Palomares, T Podlesnikar and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

V C WilzeckDepartment of Cardiology, University Heart Center, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091 Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7381-8784
G E MandoliDepartment of Medical Biotechnologies, Division of Cardiology, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.
A DemirkiranDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8104-3296
E AndroulakisKing's College Hospital, London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
H Soliman AboumarieSchool of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine & Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
A A GiannopoulosDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Cardiac Imaging, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091 Zürich, Switzerland.
S JoshiBHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Chancellors Building, Little France Crescent, Little France Edinburgh EH16 4SB, UK.
S BhattacharyyaSt Bartholomew's Hospital, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0234-5366
J F PalomaresDepartment of Cardiology, Vall D'Hebron Hospital Universitari, Vall D'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain.
T PodlesnikarDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
M R DweckBHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh, Chancellors Building, Little France Crescent, Little France Edinburgh EH16 4SB, UK.
R MankaDepartment of Cardiology, University Heart Center, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091 Zürich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3383-4998

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

cardiac computed tomography angiographycardiovascular magnetic resonancecoronary artery diseaseischaemic heart diseasemultimodality imagingmyocardial viabilitypositron emission tomographysingle-photon emission computed tomographystress echocardiographytransthoracic echocardiography

Identifiers

PMID40874196
PMCPMC12379888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.