ArticleScientific reports2025
Prognostic value of myocardial bridging versus non-obstructive CAD: a long-term follow-up study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
We aim to investigate if myocardial bridging (MB) provides predictive value beyond its association with non-obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) burden in a long-term follow-up and multicenter study. This study included 4176 consecutive patients with suspected CAD underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) at two hospitals in Wuhan, China, between September 2016 and December 2017 for finial analysis. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the cumulative event-free survival of non-obstructive CAD burden and MB burden classifications, respectively. Further, cox regression models were applied to calculate hazard ratios (HR) for increasing non-obstructive CAD and MB burden classifications. In total, during the 6.04 years (interquartile range 5.73-6.32) follow-up, 276 (6.61%) patients occurred main adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). MB was found in 44% of patients without CAD and in 40.5% of those with non-obstructive CAD. The annualized MACE rate was 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92-1.24) for the no MB group and 1.13 (95% CI: 0.95-1.34) for the MB group. Univarite and Multivariate Cox regression showed that neither the depth nor the length of MB was associated with the risk of MACE. However, after adjusting with sex, age, smoke, drink, hypertension and diabetes, 2-vessel non-obstructive CAD and 3-vessel non-obstructive CAD showed significant association with the risk of MACE, with HR of 1.53 (95% CI: 1.06-2.21, P = 0.023) and 1.93 (95% CI: 1.32-2.82, P = 0.001), respectively, using no CAD as the reference group. Non-obstructive CAD, not presence of MB, is the main predictor of risk for future MACE in patients without obstructive CAD. Prospective registries in the future should include validated quality of life measures and CT-FFR with long-term outcomes to enhance the understanding of symptomatic burden and functional assessment in MB risk stratification.
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.