Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 481

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

Hachamovitch, R., Rozanski, A., Shaw, L. J., Stone, G. W., Thomson, L. E. J., Friedman, J. D., Hayes, S. W., Cohen, I., Germano, G., Berman, D. S.·2011·European Heart Journal

Abstract

AIMS: Although pre-revascularization ischaemia testing is recommended, the interaction between the extent of ischaemia and myocardial scar with performance of revascularization on patient survival is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 13 969 patients who underwent adenosine or exercise stress SPECT myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS). The percent myocardium ischaemic (%I) and fixed (%F) were calculated using 5 point/20-segment MPS scoring. Patients lost to follow-up (2.8%) were excluded leaving 13 555 patients [35% with history (Hx) of known coronary artery disease (CAD), 65% exercise stress, 61% male, age 66 ± 12]. Follow-up was performed at 12-18 months for early revascularization and at >7 years for all-cause death (ACD) (mean follow-up 8.7 ± 3.3 years). All-cause death was modelled using Cox proportional hazards modelling adjusting for logistic-based propensity scores, MPS, revascularization, and baseline characteristics. During FU, 3893 ACD (29%, 3.3%/year) and 1226 early revascularizations (9.0%) occurred. After risk-adjustment, a three-way interaction was present between %I, early revascularization, and HxCAD, such that %I identified a survival benefit with early revascularization in patients without prior myocardial infarction (MI), whereas no such benefit was present in patients with prior MI (overall model χ(2)= 3932, P < 0.001; interaction P < 0.021). Further modelling revealed that after excluding patients with scar >10% total myocardium, %I identified a survival benefit in all patients. CONCLUSION: In this large observational series with long-term follow-up, patients with significant ischaemia and without extensive scar were likely to realize a survival benefit from early revascularization. In contrast, the survival of patients with minimal ischaemia was superior with medical therapy without early revascularization.

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 · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq500

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 481

Metadata

Authors
Hachamovitch, R., Rozanski, A., Shaw, L. J., Stone, G. W., Thomson, L. E. J., Friedman, J. D., Hayes, S. W., Cohen, I., Germano, G., & Berman, D. S.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2011-01-21
Volume
32
Issue
8
Pages
1012-1024
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2149888635
Cited by
481
References
1
FWCI
25.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehq500
The paper
Hachamovitch, R., Rozanski, A., Shaw, L. J., Stone, G. W., Thomson, L. E. J., Friedman, J. D., Hayes, S. W., Cohen, I., Germano, G., & Berman, D. S. (2011). Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehq500

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.