The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Discrepancies Between Cineangiographic and Postmortem Findings in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Recent Myocardial Revascularization
Open accessAbstract
In 28 consecutive patients who died following coronary artery grafting and within 30 days of a previous coronary cineangiogram, a study was undertaken to compare the findings at autopsy and those at angiography. In five instances, such a comparison could not be made: in one instance, no postmortem examination was obtained, and in four additional cases, the quality of the cineangiographic document (three instances) or the pathological specimen (one instance) did not permit a reliable comparison. In the remaining 23 cases, there were nine specimens in which an appreciable difference (≥ 25%) was noted in the severity of the coronary artery lesions. In four of these nine cases, failure of cineangiography to assess the degree of coronary arterial narrowing led to incomplete myocardial revascularization and contributed, in retrospect, to the surgical failure. Most discrepancies occurred in the left coronary artery system, despite the fact that in all instances, four projections had been obtained of the left coronary artery in the transverse plane. Because of the particular orientation of the initial portion of the left coronary artery and its major divisions, it is recommended that additional projections in the sagittal plane be included to eliminate angiographic superimposition of multiple branches, which often cannot be properly separated in the standard transverse plane.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Scanlon, P. J., Faxon, D. P., Audet, A.-M., Carabello, B., Dehmer, G. J., Eagle, K. A., Legako, R. D., Leon, D. F., Murray, J. A., Nissen, S. E., et al. (1999) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00126-6 · Cited by 1,123
Topol, E. J., & Nissen, S. E. (1995) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.92.8.2333 · Cited by 1,103
ARNETT, E. N., ISNER, J. M., REDWOOD, D. R., KENT, K. M., BAKER, W. P., ACKERSTEIN, H., & ROBERTS, W. C. (1979) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-91-3-350 · Cited by 628
Mintz, G. S., Painter, J. A., Pichard, A. D., Kent, K. M., Satler, L. F., Popma, J. J., Chuang, Y. C., Bucher, T. A., Sokolowicz, L. E., & Leon, M. B. (1995) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/0735-1097(95)00088-l · Cited by 592
Haberl, R., Becker, A., Leber, A., Knez, A., Becker, C., Lang, C., Brüning, R., Reiser, M., & Steinbeck, G. (2001) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/s0735-1097(00)01119-0 · Cited by 472
Metadata
- Authors
- GRONDIN, C. M., DYRDA, I., PASTERNAC, A., CAMPEAU, L., BOURASSA, M. G., & LESPÉRANCE, J.
- Venue
- Circulation
- Published
- 1974-04
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 703-708
- ISSN
- 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4539
- OpenAlex
- W1985989454
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.01
- 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: Discrepancies Between Cineangiographic and Postmortem Findings in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Recent Myocardial Revascularization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.49.4.703
- The paper
- GRONDIN, C. M., DYRDA, I., PASTERNAC, A., CAMPEAU, L., BOURASSA, M. G., & LESPÉRANCE, J. (1974). Discrepancies Between Cineangiographic and Postmortem Findings in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Recent Myocardial Revascularization. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.49.4.703
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.