Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42832920›Full record

ArticleJACC. Advances2026

Real-World Comparison of Cardiac MRI and Nuclear Perfusion Imaging for Myocardial Scar Detection.

Ibolya Csecs, Ioannis Kyriakoulis, Ahmed Ibrahim Ahmed, Catherine X Wright, Damianos Kokkinidis, Edward J Miller, Albert J Sinusas, Attila Feher

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JACC. Advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Ibolya CsecsSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Ioannis KyriakoulisFaculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
Ahmed Ibrahim AhmedSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Catherine X WrightSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Damianos KokkinidisSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Edward J MillerSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Albert J SinusasSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Attila FeherSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. Electronic address: attila.feher@yale.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCardiovascular magnetic resonance late gadolinium enhancement (CMR-LGE) is the reference standard for scar detection, but data comparing LGE with fixed perfusion defects (FPD) on nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) are limited.

objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate concordance between myocardial scar detection by CMR-LGE and nuclear MPI.

methodsIn this retrospective single-center study, patients undergoing contrast CMR and nuclear MPI within 1 year were included: single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) with CT attenuation correction (SPECT

resultsLGE was present in 354 patients (43%), predominantly nonischemic, whereas nuclear MPI detected scar less frequently (30%, P < 0.01). Nuclear scar was associated with ischemic LGE (OR: 5.86; 95% CI: 3.64-9.43; P < 0.001), but not nonischemic LGE. PET demonstrated higher specificity than SPECT for detecting ischemic and ≥50% transmural LGE (P < 0.01). Patients with ≥50% transmural LGE had lower MBF

conclusionsMPI detected myocardial scar less frequently than CMR-LGE, with PET providing greater specificity than SPECT for ischemic and transmural scar. Combined LGE and FPD identified patients at highest risk of adverse outcomes, supporting PET MPI for myocardial scar characterization.

Indexed as

cardiac magnetic resonance imaginglate gadolinium enhancementmajor adverse cardiac eventsmyocardial perfusion imagingmyocardial scarpositron emission tomography

Identifiers

PMID42832920
PMCPMC13673032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.