ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2026
Coronary anatomy detects, ischemia predicts: Real-world insights from the Nancy ischemia registry.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2026. 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.
- FOCUS-ischemia: A real-world comparison of an ischemia-focused analytical strategy and conventional multiparametric stress CMR.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The respective roles of coronary atherosclerosis assessment and myocardial ischemia testing for cardiovascular risk stratification remain debated, particularly in real-world clinical practice where imaging strategies are guided by patient risk profile rather than random assignment. Methods: The Nancy Ischemia Registry prospectively included 3,020 consecutive patients between February 2021 and December 2022. Patients underwent either anatomical imaging [coronary artery calcium score (CACS) or coronary CT angiography (CCTA)] or functional ischemia testing [stress echocardiography or stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR)]. Follow-up was completed through December 2023. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as cardiovascular death or myocardial revascularization. Results: Anatomical imaging was used almost exclusively in primary prevention, whereas ischemia-based testing included both primary and secondary prevention populations. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a higher cumulative incidence of MACE among patients undergoing ischemia screening (20 %) compared with anatomical screening (15 %), with divergence after approximately 500 days. However, this difference was not confirmed after multivariable adjustment (HR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.87-1.23; p = 0.73), and residual confounding related to incomplete adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors cannot be excluded. Myocardial ischemia, particularly when associated with revascularization, was strongly associated with adverse events, while total atherosclerotic burden remained independently associated with outcomes. Age and male sex were additional predictors of MACE. Conclusions: In this real-world registry, anatomical imaging provided information on total atherosclerotic burden, whereas functional imaging identified patients with high-risk myocardial ischemia and subsequent revascularization. These findings offer real-world insights into the complementary roles of anatomical and functional imaging in distinct clinical populations and support an integrated, imaging-guided approach to personalized CAD management.
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.