Literature DB >> 15145104

Incremental value of parametric quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion by triggered Low-Power myocardial contrast echocardiography.

Eric H C Yu1, Danny M Skyba, Howard Leong-Poi, Cairrine Sloggett, Michal Jamorski, Rohit Garg, R Mark Iwanochko, Samuel C Siu.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the assessment of myocardial perfusion by myocardial parametric quantification (MPQ) with technetium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomographic (SPECT) imaging in humans.
BACKGROUND: Accurate visual interpretation of myocardial contrast echocardiographic (MCE) images is qualitative and requires considerable experience. Current computer-assisted quantitative perfusion protocols are tedious and lack spatial resolution. Myocardial parametric quantification is a novel method that quantifies, color encodes, and displays perfusion data as a set of myocardial parametric images according to the relative degree of perfusion.
METHODS: Forty-six consecutive patients underwent prospective stress/rest technetium-99m sestamibi gated-SPECT imaging and MCE using intravenous Optison or Definity. Apical two- and four-chamber cine loops at rest and after dipyridamole (0.56 mg/kg) stress were acquired. For each patient, the following assessments of myocardial perfusion were performed: 1). visual cine-loop assessment (VIS); 2). MPQ assessment; and 3). combined VIS + MPQ assessment.
RESULTS: The segmental rates of agreement for myocardial perfusion with SPECT were 83%, 89%, and 92% (kappa = 0.46, 0.58, and 0.68) for VIS, MPQ, and VIS + MPQ, respectively. Similar trends were seen for the classification of the presence or absence of a moderate to severe perfusion defect, with the agreement for VIS, MPQ, and VIS + MPQ being 92%, 97%, and 97%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Myocardial parametric quantification demonstrates good agreement with SPECT and incremental agreement with VIS. Analysis strategies that incorporate MPQ demonstrate better agreement with SPECT than visual analysis alone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15145104     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.09.073

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  6 in total

Review 1.  Leveraging the power of ultrasound for therapeutic design and optimization.

Authors:  Charles F Caskey; Xiaowen Hu; Katherine W Ferrara
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2011-07-30       Impact factor: 9.776

2.  Usefulness of myocardial parametric imaging to evaluate myocardial viability in experimental and in clinical studies.

Authors:  G Korosoglou; A Hansen; R Bekeredjian; A Filusch; S Hardt; D Wolf; D Schellberg; H A Katus; H Kuecherer
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-06-06       Impact factor: 5.994

3.  In vivo assessment of myocardial stiffness with acoustic radiation force impulse imaging.

Authors:  Stephen J Hsu; Richard R Bouchard; Douglas M Dumont; Patrick D Wolf; Gregg E Trahey
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 2.998

4.  In Vivo Open- and Closed-chest Measurements of Left-Ventricular Myocardial Viscoelasticity using Lamb wave Dispersion Ultrasound Vibrometry (LDUV): A Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Ivan Z Nenadic; Matthew W Urban; Cristina Pislaru; Daniel Escobar; Luiz Vasconcelos; James F Greenleaf
Journal:  Biomed Phys Eng Express       Date:  2018-04-30

Review 5.  Myocardial perfusion echocardiography and coronary microvascular dysfunction.

Authors:  Giuseppe Barletta; Maria Riccarda Del Bene
Journal:  World J Cardiol       Date:  2015-12-26

6.  Quantitative detection of myocardial ischaemia by stress echocardiography; a comparison with SPECT.

Authors:  Petri Gudmundsson; Kambiz Shahgaldi; Reidar Winter; Magnus Dencker; Mariusz Kitlinski; Ola Thorsson; Ronnie B Willenheimer; Lennart Ljunggren
Journal:  Cardiovasc Ultrasound       Date:  2009-06-18       Impact factor: 2.062

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.