ArticleThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2014
Concordance and diagnostic accuracy of vasodilator stress cardiac MRI and 320-detector row coronary CTA.
Article in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Stress Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Known or Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA cardiology · 2023Pooled it
- Precise measurement of coronary stenosis diameter with CCTA using CT number calibration.Medical physics · 2019Article
- The impact of small motion on the visualization of coronary vessels and lesions in cardiac CT: A simulation study.Medical physics · 2017Article
- Cardiovascular imaging 2013 in the International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2014Review
- Multimodality Imaging in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.Current cardiovascular imaging reports · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Vasodilator stress cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) detects ischemia whereas coronary CT angiography (CTA) detects atherosclerosis. The purpose of this study was to determine concordance and accuracy of vasodilator stress CMR and coronary CTA in the same subjects. We studied 151 consecutive subjects referred to detect or exclude suspected obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients without known disease or recurrent stenosis or ischemia in patients with previously treated CAD. Vasodilator stress CMR was performed on a 1.5 T scanner. CTA was performed on a 320-detector row system. Subjects were followed for cardiovascular events and downstream diagnostic testing. Subjects averaged 56 ± 12 years (60% male), and 62 % had intermediate pre-test probability for obstructive CAD. Follow-up averaged 450 ± 115 days and was 100% complete. CMR and CTA agreed in 92% of cases (κ 0.81, p < 0.001). The event-free survival was 97 % for non-ischemic and 39% for ischemic CMR (p < 0.0001). The event-free survival was 99% for non-obstructive and 36% for obstructive CTA (p < 0.0001). Using a reference standard including quantitative invasive angiography or major cardiovascular events, CMR and CTA had respective sensitivities of 93 and 98 %; specificities of 96 and 96%; positive predictive values of 91 and 91%; negative predictive values of 97 and 99%; and accuracies of 95 and 97%. Non-ischemic vasodilator stress CMR or non-obstructive coronary CTA were highly concordant and each confer an excellent prognosis. CMR and CTA are both accurate for assessment of obstructive CAD in a predominantly intermediate risk population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.