ReviewMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2025
From Echo to Coronary Angiography: Optimizing Ischemia Evaluation Through Multimodal Imaging.
Review in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Diagnostic and Prognostic Impact of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Copeptin in acute ischemic stroke: a surrogate marker of AVP-system activation with temporal dynamics and clinical implications.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multimodal imaging plays a central role in optimizing the evaluation and management of myocardial ischemia by leveraging the complementary strengths of echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), positron emission tomography (PET), and invasive coronary angiography (ICA). Noninvasive functional imaging is typically recommended for patients with intermediate to high pre-test probability of coronary artery disease, while coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is preferred for low to intermediate risk. Stress echocardiography is valuable for detecting wall motion abnormalities and is particularly effective in multivessel or left main disease, where perfusion techniques may miss balanced ischemia. CMR offers high spatial resolution and quantitative assessment of myocardial blood flow (MBF), while SPECT and PET quantify ischemic burden, with PET providing superior accuracy for MBF and microvascular disease. ICA remains the gold standard for defining the presence, location, and severity of epicardial coronary stenosis. It is indicated when noninvasive imaging reveals high-risk features, when symptoms are refractory to medical therapy, or when noninvasive results are inconclusive. While ICA offers high spatial resolution, it alone cannot assess the hemodynamic significance of intermediate lesions, nor the coronary microvasculature. Adjunctive invasive hemodynamic and provocative coronary testing (e.g., Fractional Flow Reserve-FFR, invasive Coronary Flow Reserve-CFR, Index of Microcirculatory Resistance-IMR, acetylcholine test) provide essential insights, especially in ischemia with nonobstructive coronary arteries. Given its procedural risks, ICA should be reserved for cases where it will impact management. Intravascular imaging may be used to further characterize lesions. In summary, modality selection should be individualized based on patient characteristics, comorbidities, contraindications, and the need for anatomical versus physiological data. Integrating noninvasive and invasive modalities provides a comprehensive, patient-centered approach to ischemia evaluation.
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.