ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
The Impact of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging on Revascularization in Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are ongoing challenges in revascularizing patients with severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, with high rates of short- and long-term complications. Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is widely used for these patients; however, the prognostic value of the sum scar score and microvascular obstruction (MVO) remains unclear.
methodA retrospective study of data from King Abdullah Medical City (KAMC) between 2023 and 2025 was conducted to evaluate revascularization decisions made based on CMR studies. Patients who had normal LV function, no angiogram report, or incomplete CMR imaging were excluded. The primary outcome was hospitalization or death in patients with or without revascularization.
resultsThe cohort included 145 patients. The patients had a mean age of 56.7 ± 9.7 years and were predominantly male 131 (90.3%), with a high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors: diabetes 102 (70.8%), hypertension 84 (58.7%), known dyslipidemia 46 (32%), and smoking 65 (45.5%). Most patients underwent a viability study within 7 days of a myocardial infarction (MI), 58 (40%), and a further 42 (28.9%) did so within 7-15 days. The CMR LVEF was 29.5 ± 8, and the sum scar score was 38.8 ± 21.9; MVO was observed in 34 patients (23.4%). The number of patients who underwent revascularization at the index admission was 66 (45.5%), of whom 48 (33%) received percutaneous intervention (PCI) and 18 (12.4%) underwent coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). The patients lost to follow-up numbered 51 (35%). There were no significant differences between the two groups for the primary endpoints, including hospitalization (
conclusionIn this retrospective study, CMR did not have an independent effect on hospitalization or mortality in patients who had revascularization compared to medical therapy groups. MVO and the LGE scar score were not significantly associated with cardiovascular outcomes. Our cohort was underpowered, with a high proportion of patients lost to follow-up, limiting the generalizability of the data.
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.