Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 197

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Echocardiographic Algorithm for Post–Myocardial Infarction LV Thrombus

Open access
Weinsaft, Jonathan W., Kim, Jiwon, Medicherla, Chaitanya B., Ma, Claudia L., Codella, Noel C.F., Kukar, Nina, Alaref, Subhi, Kim, Raymond J., Devereux, Richard B.·2016·JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging

Abstract

Objectives To determine prevalence of post-MI LV thrombus in the current era, and develop an effective algorithm – predicated on echocardiography (echo) - to discern patients warranting further testing for thrombus via delayed-enhancement (DE-) CMR. Background LV thrombus impacts post-MI management. DE-CMR provides thrombus tissue characterization and is well validated but an impractical screening modality for all post-MI patients. Methods Same day echo and CMR were performed via a tailored protocol, which entailed uniform echo contrast (irrespective of image quality) and dedicated DE-CMR for thrombus tissue characterization. Results 201 patients were studied; 8% had thrombus via DE-CMR. All thrombi were apically located – 94% occurred with LAD MI. Whereas patients with thrombus had more prolonged chest pain and larger MI (p≤0.01), only 18% had aneurysm on echo (cine-CMR 24%). Non-contrast (35%) and contrast echo (64%) yielded limited sensitivity for thrombus on DE-CMR. Thrombus was associated with stepwise increments in basal → apical contractile dysfunction on echo and quantitative cine-CMR; echo-measured apical wall motion score was higher among patients with thrombus (p<0.001) and paralleled cine-CMR decrements in apical EF and peak ejection rates (both p<0.005). Thrombus-associated decrements in apical contractile dysfunction were significant even among patients with LAD infarction (p<0.05). Echo-based apical wall motion score improved overall performance (AUC 0.89±0.44) for thrombus compared to EF (AUC 0.80±0.61; p=0.01): Apical wall motion partitions would have enabled all patients with LV thrombus to be appropriately referred for DE-CMR (100% sensitivity and negative predictive value), while avoiding further testing in over half (56–63%) of patients. Conclusions LV thrombus remains common especially after LAD MI, and can occur even in absence of aneurysm. Whereas DE-CMR yields improved overall thrombus detection, apical wall motion on non-contrast echo can be used as an effective stratification tool to identify patients in whom DE-CMR thrombus assessment is most warranted.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.06.017

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 197

Metadata

Authors
Weinsaft, J. W., Kim, J., Medicherla, C. B., Ma, C. L., Codella, N. C. F., Kukar, N., Alaref, S., Kim, R. J., & Devereux, R. B.
Venue
JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
9
Issue
5
Pages
505-515
ISSN
  • 1876-7591 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-878X
OpenAlex
W2147368884
Cited by
197
References
3
FWCI
7.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Echocardiographic Algorithm for Post–Myocardial Infarction LV Thrombus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.06.017
The paper
Weinsaft, J. W., Kim, J., Medicherla, C. B., Ma, C. L., Codella, N. C. F., Kukar, N., Alaref, S., Kim, R. J., & Devereux, R. B. (2016). Echocardiographic Algorithm for Post–Myocardial Infarction LV Thrombus. JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2015.06.017

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.