SynthesisThe international journal of cardiovascular imaging2026
Prognostic impact of myocardial bridge on long-term mortality and morbidity: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in The international journal of cardiovascular imaging, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe clinical relevance of myocardial bridge (MB) remains uncertain and inconsistently reported across studies. This study aimed to assess the relationship between MB and long-term mortality and morbidity, while accounting for the influence of varying patient populations and diagnostic methods used to detect MB.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify studies published up to December 2024 that examined the association between MB and adverse outcomes, including all-cause death (ACD), cardiovascular death (CVD), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).
resultsA total of 22 studies involving 37,940 participants were included in the analysis. MB was not significantly associated with an increased risk of ACD or CVD. However, MB showed a significant association with MACE, with a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 1.958 (95% CI: 1.490-2.572; P < 0.001) across 19 studies. Subgroup analysis indicated that MB identified through conventional coronary angiography was significantly linked to a higher risk of MACE (pooled HR: 1.992; 95% CI: 1.432-2.772; P < 0.001), whereas MB detected using multi-detector computed tomography did not show a statistically significant association with MACE. Among high-risk groups, such as patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and those with high-risk coronary artery disease, MB was associated with a notably increased risk of MACE, with pooled HRs of 2.174 (95% CI: 1.067-4.426; P = 0.032) and 3.435 (95% CI: 1.732-6.810; P < 0.001), respectively.
conclusionsMB was associated with an increased relative risk of MACE in pooled analyses but showed no significant association with isolated ACD or CVD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41775946What 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.