Ischemic Postconditioning Confers No Benefit to Left Ventricular Systolic Function: A Meta-Analysis of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Results
Ischemic postconditioning (IPoC) is a technique suggested to reduce reperfusion injury in patients suffering acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), although its use is highly controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of IPoC with percutaneous coronary intervention in...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of cardiology 2023-12, Vol.208, p.126-133 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 133 |
---|---|
container_issue | |
container_start_page | 126 |
container_title | The American journal of cardiology |
container_volume | 208 |
creator | Bergman, Idan Boyle, Dennis Braver, Omri Gelikas, Shaul Wexler, Yehuda Omelchenko, Alexander Assali, Abid Nussinovitch, Udi |
description | Ischemic postconditioning (IPoC) is a technique suggested to reduce reperfusion injury in patients suffering acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), although its use is highly controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of IPoC with percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute STEMI, as measured by follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. The investigators searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for all randomized controlled trials published during the last 2 decades. After the removal of duplicates, 2,021 articles from online databases had been identified using relevant search criteria. The included randomized controlled trials had studied patients with acute STEMI and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 0 to 1 at presentation and had measured follow-up LVEF using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Overall, 11 studies (n = 1,339 patients) qualified for inclusion. In each study, the control group did not differ significantly from the experimental group. The pooled data from included studies were analyzed using standardized mean difference between IPoC and control groups, and the 95% confidence interval for LVEF; the results were visualized using a forest plot. Bivariate regression analyses and 1-way analyses of LVEF coefficient ratios were done to isolate for various clinical and procedural parameters. An analysis of pooled data of the IPoC (n = 674) and control (n = 665) groups showed that IPoC did not significantly impact follow-up LVEF (using standardized mean difference 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21). Further analysis showed that IPoC did not improve follow-up LVEF when isolating for relevant clinical and procedural parameters. In conclusion, the use of IPoC as an adjunctive therapy to percutaneous coronary intervention seemingly provides no benefit to left ventricular systolic function, as quantified with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, in patients with acute STEMI with Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 0 to 1. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.09.039 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2877381211</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0002914923010317</els_id><sourcerecordid>2877381211</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c318t-c9f818d3f515710f01ed37b623824b83601c5fd7a3127dbeb69ea68b64aae9a03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc2O0zAUhSMEEmXgEZAssWGTjG_cJDYbVCpmqNQBxN_Wcpzr4iixB9tB6mPwxjjqrNiwuvLVd459fIriJdAKKLTXY6XmUaswVDWtWUVFRZl4VGyAd6IEAexxsaGU1qWArXhaPItxzEeApt0Ufw5R_8TZavLZx6S9G2yy3ll3InvvDIZIPnryDh0am0jy5IgmkR_oUrB6mVQgX88x-Skb3CxOr9o3ZEfuMKly59R0jjYSb8g-P88qTe7UyWHK9BeM3imnkRxmdVrvy5tlSvF58cSoKeKLh3lVfL95_23_oTx-uj3sd8dSM-Cp1MJw4AMzDTQdUEMBB9b1bc14ve05aynoxgydYlB3Q499K1C1vG-3SqFQlF0Vry--98H_WjAmOduocZqUQ79EWfOuYxxqgIy--gcd_RJyupXirRB1u20y1VwoHXyMAY28D3ZW4SyByrUoOcqHouRalKRC5qKy7u1Fhzntb4tBRm0x_8xgA-okB2__4_AX2Wmf-g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2886992645</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ischemic Postconditioning Confers No Benefit to Left Ventricular Systolic Function: A Meta-Analysis of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Results</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Bergman, Idan ; Boyle, Dennis ; Braver, Omri ; Gelikas, Shaul ; Wexler, Yehuda ; Omelchenko, Alexander ; Assali, Abid ; Nussinovitch, Udi</creator><creatorcontrib>Bergman, Idan ; Boyle, Dennis ; Braver, Omri ; Gelikas, Shaul ; Wexler, Yehuda ; Omelchenko, Alexander ; Assali, Abid ; Nussinovitch, Udi</creatorcontrib><description>Ischemic postconditioning (IPoC) is a technique suggested to reduce reperfusion injury in patients suffering acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), although its use is highly controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of IPoC with percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute STEMI, as measured by follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. The investigators searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for all randomized controlled trials published during the last 2 decades. After the removal of duplicates, 2,021 articles from online databases had been identified using relevant search criteria. The included randomized controlled trials had studied patients with acute STEMI and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 0 to 1 at presentation and had measured follow-up LVEF using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Overall, 11 studies (n = 1,339 patients) qualified for inclusion. In each study, the control group did not differ significantly from the experimental group. The pooled data from included studies were analyzed using standardized mean difference between IPoC and control groups, and the 95% confidence interval for LVEF; the results were visualized using a forest plot. Bivariate regression analyses and 1-way analyses of LVEF coefficient ratios were done to isolate for various clinical and procedural parameters. An analysis of pooled data of the IPoC (n = 674) and control (n = 665) groups showed that IPoC did not significantly impact follow-up LVEF (using standardized mean difference 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21). Further analysis showed that IPoC did not improve follow-up LVEF when isolating for relevant clinical and procedural parameters. In conclusion, the use of IPoC as an adjunctive therapy to percutaneous coronary intervention seemingly provides no benefit to left ventricular systolic function, as quantified with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, in patients with acute STEMI with Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 0 to 1.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9149</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-1913</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.09.039</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>acute coronary syndrome ; Acute coronary syndromes ; Angioplasty ; Bivariate analysis ; Body mass index ; cardiac magnetic resonance imaging ; Clinical trials ; Confidence intervals ; Coronary vessels ; Diabetes ; Disease ; Ejection fraction ; Heart ; Heart attacks ; Heart failure ; infarct size ; Injury prevention ; Ischemia ; ischemic postconditioning ; left ventricular ejection fraction ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Meta-analysis ; Myocardial infarction ; Parameters ; Patients ; Permeability ; Regression analysis ; Reperfusion ; Statistical analysis ; Thrombolysis ; Veins & arteries ; Ventricle</subject><ispartof>The American journal of cardiology, 2023-12, Vol.208, p.126-133</ispartof><rights>2023 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2023. Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c318t-c9f818d3f515710f01ed37b623824b83601c5fd7a3127dbeb69ea68b64aae9a03</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8655-7608</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2886992645?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,3537,27905,27906,45976,64364,64366,64368,72218</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bergman, Idan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyle, Dennis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braver, Omri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gelikas, Shaul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wexler, Yehuda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Omelchenko, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Assali, Abid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nussinovitch, Udi</creatorcontrib><title>Ischemic Postconditioning Confers No Benefit to Left Ventricular Systolic Function: A Meta-Analysis of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Results</title><title>The American journal of cardiology</title><description>Ischemic postconditioning (IPoC) is a technique suggested to reduce reperfusion injury in patients suffering acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), although its use is highly controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of IPoC with percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute STEMI, as measured by follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. The investigators searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for all randomized controlled trials published during the last 2 decades. After the removal of duplicates, 2,021 articles from online databases had been identified using relevant search criteria. The included randomized controlled trials had studied patients with acute STEMI and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 0 to 1 at presentation and had measured follow-up LVEF using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Overall, 11 studies (n = 1,339 patients) qualified for inclusion. In each study, the control group did not differ significantly from the experimental group. The pooled data from included studies were analyzed using standardized mean difference between IPoC and control groups, and the 95% confidence interval for LVEF; the results were visualized using a forest plot. Bivariate regression analyses and 1-way analyses of LVEF coefficient ratios were done to isolate for various clinical and procedural parameters. An analysis of pooled data of the IPoC (n = 674) and control (n = 665) groups showed that IPoC did not significantly impact follow-up LVEF (using standardized mean difference 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21). Further analysis showed that IPoC did not improve follow-up LVEF when isolating for relevant clinical and procedural parameters. In conclusion, the use of IPoC as an adjunctive therapy to percutaneous coronary intervention seemingly provides no benefit to left ventricular systolic function, as quantified with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, in patients with acute STEMI with Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 0 to 1.</description><subject>acute coronary syndrome</subject><subject>Acute coronary syndromes</subject><subject>Angioplasty</subject><subject>Bivariate analysis</subject><subject>Body mass index</subject><subject>cardiac magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Coronary vessels</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Disease</subject><subject>Ejection fraction</subject><subject>Heart</subject><subject>Heart attacks</subject><subject>Heart failure</subject><subject>infarct size</subject><subject>Injury prevention</subject><subject>Ischemia</subject><subject>ischemic postconditioning</subject><subject>left ventricular ejection fraction</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Myocardial infarction</subject><subject>Parameters</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Permeability</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Reperfusion</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Thrombolysis</subject><subject>Veins & arteries</subject><subject>Ventricle</subject><issn>0002-9149</issn><issn>1879-1913</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc2O0zAUhSMEEmXgEZAssWGTjG_cJDYbVCpmqNQBxN_Wcpzr4iixB9tB6mPwxjjqrNiwuvLVd459fIriJdAKKLTXY6XmUaswVDWtWUVFRZl4VGyAd6IEAexxsaGU1qWArXhaPItxzEeApt0Ufw5R_8TZavLZx6S9G2yy3ll3InvvDIZIPnryDh0am0jy5IgmkR_oUrB6mVQgX88x-Skb3CxOr9o3ZEfuMKly59R0jjYSb8g-P88qTe7UyWHK9BeM3imnkRxmdVrvy5tlSvF58cSoKeKLh3lVfL95_23_oTx-uj3sd8dSM-Cp1MJw4AMzDTQdUEMBB9b1bc14ve05aynoxgydYlB3Q499K1C1vG-3SqFQlF0Vry--98H_WjAmOduocZqUQ79EWfOuYxxqgIy--gcd_RJyupXirRB1u20y1VwoHXyMAY28D3ZW4SyByrUoOcqHouRalKRC5qKy7u1Fhzntb4tBRm0x_8xgA-okB2__4_AX2Wmf-g</recordid><startdate>20231201</startdate><enddate>20231201</enddate><creator>Bergman, Idan</creator><creator>Boyle, Dennis</creator><creator>Braver, Omri</creator><creator>Gelikas, Shaul</creator><creator>Wexler, Yehuda</creator><creator>Omelchenko, Alexander</creator><creator>Assali, Abid</creator><creator>Nussinovitch, Udi</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8655-7608</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20231201</creationdate><title>Ischemic Postconditioning Confers No Benefit to Left Ventricular Systolic Function: A Meta-Analysis of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Results</title><author>Bergman, Idan ; Boyle, Dennis ; Braver, Omri ; Gelikas, Shaul ; Wexler, Yehuda ; Omelchenko, Alexander ; Assali, Abid ; Nussinovitch, Udi</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c318t-c9f818d3f515710f01ed37b623824b83601c5fd7a3127dbeb69ea68b64aae9a03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>acute coronary syndrome</topic><topic>Acute coronary syndromes</topic><topic>Angioplasty</topic><topic>Bivariate analysis</topic><topic>Body mass index</topic><topic>cardiac magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Coronary vessels</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Disease</topic><topic>Ejection fraction</topic><topic>Heart</topic><topic>Heart attacks</topic><topic>Heart failure</topic><topic>infarct size</topic><topic>Injury prevention</topic><topic>Ischemia</topic><topic>ischemic postconditioning</topic><topic>left ventricular ejection fraction</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Myocardial infarction</topic><topic>Parameters</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Permeability</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Reperfusion</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Thrombolysis</topic><topic>Veins & arteries</topic><topic>Ventricle</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bergman, Idan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boyle, Dennis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braver, Omri</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gelikas, Shaul</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wexler, Yehuda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Omelchenko, Alexander</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Assali, Abid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nussinovitch, Udi</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of cardiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bergman, Idan</au><au>Boyle, Dennis</au><au>Braver, Omri</au><au>Gelikas, Shaul</au><au>Wexler, Yehuda</au><au>Omelchenko, Alexander</au><au>Assali, Abid</au><au>Nussinovitch, Udi</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ischemic Postconditioning Confers No Benefit to Left Ventricular Systolic Function: A Meta-Analysis of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Results</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of cardiology</jtitle><date>2023-12-01</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>208</volume><spage>126</spage><epage>133</epage><pages>126-133</pages><issn>0002-9149</issn><eissn>1879-1913</eissn><abstract>Ischemic postconditioning (IPoC) is a technique suggested to reduce reperfusion injury in patients suffering acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), although its use is highly controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of IPoC with percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute STEMI, as measured by follow-up left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. The investigators searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for all randomized controlled trials published during the last 2 decades. After the removal of duplicates, 2,021 articles from online databases had been identified using relevant search criteria. The included randomized controlled trials had studied patients with acute STEMI and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 0 to 1 at presentation and had measured follow-up LVEF using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Overall, 11 studies (n = 1,339 patients) qualified for inclusion. In each study, the control group did not differ significantly from the experimental group. The pooled data from included studies were analyzed using standardized mean difference between IPoC and control groups, and the 95% confidence interval for LVEF; the results were visualized using a forest plot. Bivariate regression analyses and 1-way analyses of LVEF coefficient ratios were done to isolate for various clinical and procedural parameters. An analysis of pooled data of the IPoC (n = 674) and control (n = 665) groups showed that IPoC did not significantly impact follow-up LVEF (using standardized mean difference 0.10, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21). Further analysis showed that IPoC did not improve follow-up LVEF when isolating for relevant clinical and procedural parameters. In conclusion, the use of IPoC as an adjunctive therapy to percutaneous coronary intervention seemingly provides no benefit to left ventricular systolic function, as quantified with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, in patients with acute STEMI with Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow 0 to 1.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.09.039</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8655-7608</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-9149 |
ispartof | The American journal of cardiology, 2023-12, Vol.208, p.126-133 |
issn | 0002-9149 1879-1913 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2877381211 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals; ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
subjects | acute coronary syndrome Acute coronary syndromes Angioplasty Bivariate analysis Body mass index cardiac magnetic resonance imaging Clinical trials Confidence intervals Coronary vessels Diabetes Disease Ejection fraction Heart Heart attacks Heart failure infarct size Injury prevention Ischemia ischemic postconditioning left ventricular ejection fraction Magnetic resonance imaging Meta-analysis Myocardial infarction Parameters Patients Permeability Regression analysis Reperfusion Statistical analysis Thrombolysis Veins & arteries Ventricle |
title | Ischemic Postconditioning Confers No Benefit to Left Ventricular Systolic Function: A Meta-Analysis of Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Imaging Results |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-17T12%3A51%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ischemic%20Postconditioning%20Confers%20No%20Benefit%20to%20Left%20Ventricular%20Systolic%20Function:%20A%20Meta-Analysis%20of%20Cardiac%20Magnetic%20Resonance%20Imaging%20Results&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20cardiology&rft.au=Bergman,%20Idan&rft.date=2023-12-01&rft.volume=208&rft.spage=126&rft.epage=133&rft.pages=126-133&rft.issn=0002-9149&rft.eissn=1879-1913&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.09.039&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2877381211%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2886992645&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0002914923010317&rfr_iscdi=true |