Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42853506›Full record

ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2026

Pharmacologic Stress Myocardial Perfusion Imaging with SPECT and PET in Liver Transplant Candidates: Physiologic Limitations, Current Evidence, and Future Directions.

Menachem M Jacobs, Attila Feher

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current cardiology reports, 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

2 authors.

Menachem M JacobsDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.
Attila FeherSection of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, P.O. Box 208017, Dana 3, 333 Cedar Street, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. attila.feher@yale.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewMyocardial perfusion imaging with SPECT and PET is commonly used to assess coronary artery disease, but its role in liver transplant candidates remains incompletely defined. This review examines how cirrhotic physiology affects pharmacologic stress imaging and summarizes current evidence for the use of SPECT, PET, and quantitative perfusion measures in this population. RECENT

findingsHyperdynamic circulation, elevated resting myocardial blood flow, impaired chronotropic response, and attenuated vasodilator reserve may reduce the diagnostic performance of relative perfusion imaging. Reported SPECT sensitivity for coronary artery disease in liver transplant candidates is substantially lower than the general population. Quantitative PET, particularly myocardial flow reserve, has shown possible prognostic value, although evidence is limited to small observational cohorts. SPECT should be interpreted cautiously in higher-risk candidates. PET may offer additional physiologic and prognostic information, but transplant-specific thresholds and clinical pathways remain unvalidated. Whether improved perfusion-based risk stratification changes management and improves outcomes remains to be determined.

Indexed as

Coronary Artery DiseaseLiver CirrhosisLiver TransplantationMyocardial Perfusion ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonExercise TestHumansPrognosisRisk AssessmentCirrhotic cardiomyopathyLiver transplantationMyocardial flow reserveMyocardial perfusion imagingPharmacologic stress testingPretransplant cardiovascular risk assessment

Identifiers

PMID42853506

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.