ArticleInsights into imaging2025
Prognostic significance and influencing factors of lipomatous metaplasia in patients after myocardial infarction.
Article in Insights into imaging, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate the prognostic value of lipomatous metaplasia (LM) in patients after myocardial infarction (MI) and to explore potential influencing factors of LM. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 1702 (mean age 59.3 ± 10.27 years, 86.08% men) patients with a history of MI who underwent coronary CT angiography (CCTA) examinations were retrospectively enrolled. The clinical endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). A subgroup of 240 patients who underwent CCTA and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) examinations within a 14-day interval was analyzed to compare the prognostic values of LM and CMR parameters and to explore influencing factors of LM.
resultsMACE occurred in 395 (23.21%) patients during a median follow-up of 45.5 months. In the entire cohort, the prevalence of LM was 46.71% on CCTA; in the subgroup, it was 51.25% on CCTA and 21.67% on CMR. LM remained a significant outcome predictor (hazard ratio (HR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.73; p = 0.002) in the multivariable model. In subgroup analysis, LM on CCTA (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.09-3.08; p = 0.023) was a stronger outcome predictor than all CMR parameters. Revascularization history (odds ratio (OR) 2.833, p = 0.006), number of diseased coronary arteries (CA) (OR 0.556, p = 0.006) and infarct size (OR 1.094, p = 0.003) remained associated with LM in the multivariable model.
conclusionLM was a significant outcome predictor in patients after MI and was stronger than CMR functional parameters and infarct size. Revascularization, infarct size and fewer diseased CA may be associated with LM development. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Lipomatous metaplasia (LM) was a common complication following myocardial infarction (MI) that increased with infarct age, identifying LM and integration of LM assessment into risk stratification models for post-MI patients may be important for clinical strategy decisions. KEY POINTS: Lipomatous metaplasia was a common complication that increased with infarct age. Lipomatous metaplasia was a significant outcome predictor in patients after myocardial infarction, stronger than CMR functional parameters and infarct size. Revascularization procedure, infarct size and fewer number of diseased coronary arteries were associated with the presence of lipomatous metaplasia.
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.