ArticleCureus2025
Therapeutic Impact of Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography in Chronic Coronary Syndrome: A Real-World Monocentric Study in a Moroccan Population.
Article in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective Dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) is a commonly used, radiation-free method for identifying inducible ischemia in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCSs). Contemporary European guidelines promote ischemia-guided management and recommend functional imaging in patients with an intermediate-to-high likelihood of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD); however, real-world data on the therapeutic impact of DSE, particularly in high-risk metabolic populations, remain limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the correlation between DSE findings and myocardial revascularization in patients with significant CAD. Methods We conducted a retrospective, single-center study in the cardiology department of a Moroccan university hospital. All patients undergoing DSE between November 2024 and November 2025 were screened (n = 133); those with a positive or equivocal DSE who subsequently underwent coronary angiography formed the study cohort (n = 38). Significant CAD was defined as ≥50% left main stenosis or ≥70% stenosis of a major epicardial vessel. We assessed the prevalence of significant CAD, patterns of revascularization (medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)), the relationship between DSE-derived ischemic burden and coronary anatomy, and the performance of the 2024 ESC pretest probability (PTP) categories. Results Significant CAD was present in 30/38 patients (78.9%), and all CAD-positive patients underwent revascularization (25 PCI and five CABG). PCI was used exclusively in single-vessel disease, whereas CABG was preferred in multivessel or left main disease. The mean number of ischemic segments was higher in CAD-positive than in CAD-negative patients (3.64 vs. 1.50; p = 0.0044), and territorial concordance between DSE and angiography was 67.6%. The correlation between the number of ischemic segments and the number of diseased vessels was modest (r = 0.19). The ESC 2024 PTP strata did not discriminate between CAD-positive and CAD-negative patients; notably, most patients with low or very low PTP and significant CAD were diabetic. Conclusions In this real-world Moroccan cohort, DSE demonstrated a high diagnostic and therapeutic yield, with ischemic burden and localization strongly influencing revascularization strategy. These findings underscore the limitations of PTP-based approaches in high-risk metabolic populations and support DSE as a practical gatekeeper to invasive angiography and guideline-based revascularization in CCS.
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.