English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background According guidelines, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) should undergo revascularization if myocardial ischemia is present. While coronary angiography (CXA) allows the morphological assessment of CAD, the fractional flow reserve (FFR) has proved to be a complementary invasive test to assess the functional severity of CAD, i.e. to detect ischemia. Perfusion Cardiac Magnetic Resonance (CMR) has emerged as a robust non-invasive technique to assess myocardial ischemia. The goal of the study was to compare the cost-effectiveness ratio defined as the costs per patient correctly diagnosed of two algorithms used to diagnose hemodynamically significant CAD in relation to the pretest likelihood of CAD: 1) a CMR to assess ischemia before referring positive patients to CXA (CMR+CXA), 2) a CXA in all patients combined with a FFR test in patients with angiographically positive stenoses (CXA+FFR).

journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Influence of disease prevalence on cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance imaging versus coronary angiography combined with fractional flow reserve testing