ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2025
First-pass perfusion imaging using cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with various cardiac implantable electronic devices.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) is increasing. However, there is limited experience regarding vasodilator-stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and resulting device artifacts on perfusion images. The aim of this study was to determine CMR image quality in patients with different CIED types for CMR-based perfusion stress testing. METHODS AND
resultsA total of 156 patients with active CIEDs underwent CMR on a 1.5-Tesla scanner. Both conventional steady-state-free-precession (SSFP) and modified spoiled gradient-echo (sGE) protocols under stress and resting conditions were used to evaluate image artifacts in a 16-segment segment model of the heart. The study group comprised 39% conventional pacemaker (PM), 4% cardiac resynchronization therapy-pacemaker (CRT-P), 38% conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD), 6% cardiac resynchronization therapy-ICD (CRT-D), and 13% subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) patients. PM-carriers showed only minor image artifacts in both perfusion protocols. Artifacts caused by ICDs were predominantly located in the left-ventricular (LV) inferolateral and anterior segments. S-ICDs showed the highest extent of artifacts with an anterolateral accentuation. The artifact extent was significantly reduced when sGE-based perfusion was used compared to SSFP-based sequences. 69% of the patients received a stress-perfusion protocol, and elective coronary angiography confirmed the presence of coronary stenosis in three cases. No major safety-relevant issues occurred.
conclusionMyocardial perfusion imaging by CMR is safe and feasible with moderate-to-high image quality in patients with all types of CIEDs, including non-conditional devices, ICDs, and S-ICDs. A sGE-based perfusion protocol should be preferred in patients with left-sided ICDs, CRT-Ds, or S-ICDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40227428What 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.