Why the study?
What is the prevalence of myocardial bridging across different diagnostic modalities?
What is the prevalence of myocardial bridging across different diagnostic modalities?
Autopsy studies reveal a much higher prevalence of myocardial bridging (42%) compared to CT (22%) and coronary angiography (6%), suggesting high-resolution CT is preferable to angiography for in vivo evaluation.
Prevalence estimates vary by modality; leaves open optimal in vivo detection of myocardial bridging.
The main objective of this article was to analyze prevalence data about myocardial bridging (MB) in published studies. To this purpose, we performed a meta‐analysis of studies published in English literature that contained data about the prevalence of MB and its anatomical characteristics. The overall prevalence was 19% (CI: 17–21%); autopsy studies revealed an overall prevalence of 42% (CI: 30–55%), CT studies 22% (CI: 18–25%), and coronary angiography 6% (CI: 5–8%). Most bridges were located on the left anterior descending artery (82% overall, 63% on autopsy studies), had a mean thickness of 2.47 mm and a mean length of 19.3 mm. In conclusion, autopsy studies should be the gold standard in evaluating the actual prevalence of myocardial bridges, while in vivo high‐resolution CT scanning should be preferred to coronary angiography studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hostiuc et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: