ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2020
Ischemia and Viability Testing in New-Onset Heart Failure.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients With Heart Failure: JACC: Heart Failure Position Statement.JACC. Heart failure · 2025Review
- Identifying Demographic and Clinical Determinants of Ischemic Workup in Patients with Heart Failure.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Imaging Advances in Heart Failure.Cardiac failure review · 2024Review
- Myocardial Viability Testing in the Management of Ischemic Heart Failure.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The prognostic implications of ST-segment and T-wave abnormalities in patients undergoing regadenoson stress SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo examine the utility and methods of coronary artery disease (CAD) assessment in patients with new-onset heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) of unclear etiology. Moreover, we sought to review the role and techniques of assessing myocardial viability to guide coronary revascularization in patients with established ischemic cardiomyopathy. RECENT
findingsData indicates that surgical coronary revascularization in patients with HFrEF due to ischemic cardiomyopathy leads to lower long-term all-cause mortality and cardiovascular hospitalizations. Thus, identifying ischemic heart disease in patients with new-onset HFrEF is essential. In addition to invasive coronary angiography (ICA), radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging, coronary CT angiography (CCTA), and cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging have emerged as effective non-invasive tools in the assessment of CAD in this population. Viability testing remains an area of particular interest and debate and its full potential has not been fully addressed. We propose stepwise algorithms for CAD and viability assessment in this patient population. Non-invasive testing with radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging, CCTA, and CMR is an alternative to ICA for CAD assessment in patients with new-onset HFrEF of unclear etiology. Several non-invasive imaging modalities have proved to be effective in detecting viable myocardium in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. The use of viability imaging to guide coronary revascularization should be individualized.
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.