PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate whether wall thickening analysis by gated perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is useful in predicting functional recovery after revascularization. METHODS: Forty-one patients with previous myocardial infarction and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (ejection fraction, EF, 36+/-6%) who were scheduled for revascularization underwent rest 99mTc-sestamibi gated SPECT. RESULTS: Of 131 akinetic or dyskinetic segments at baseline echocardiography, 82 (63%) recovered after revascularization. Compared with wall thickening analysis, perfusion imaging provided higher sensitivity (78% vs 50%, P<0.0001) and specificity (80% vs 71%, P<0.0005). Among segments with > or =55% sestamibi uptake (viable), those with detectable wall thickening had a higher likelihood of functional recovery than those with absent wall thickening (95% vs 77%, P<0.05). In segments with improved function, the absence of wall thickening was associated with lower sestamibi activity than was observed when detectable wall thickening was present (58+/-14% vs 71+/-13%, P<0.0005). An increase in EF of > or =5% was detectable in 22 (54%) patients. For the prediction of EF improvement, perfusion imaging provided a higher sensitivity than wall thickening analysis (68% vs 41%, P<0.05), while specificity was not significantly different (68% vs 74%). The prevalence of patients with functional recovery did not change when wall thickening analysis was considered in addition to perfusion status (73% in patients with detectable wall thickening and 70% in those without; P=NS). CONCLUSION: In patients with coronary artery disease, wall thickening analysis by gated perfusion SPECT provides additional information compared with perfusion data for the prediction of segmental functional recovery. However, on a patient basis, wall thickening assessment seems to be of more limited value than perfusion status.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate whether wall thickening analysis by gated perfusion single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is useful in predicting functional recovery after revascularization. METHODS: Forty-one patients with previous myocardial infarction and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (ejection fraction, EF, 36+/-6%) who were scheduled for revascularization underwent rest 99mTc-sestamibi gated SPECT. RESULTS: Of 131 akinetic or dyskinetic segments at baseline echocardiography, 82 (63%) recovered after revascularization. Compared with wall thickening analysis, perfusion imaging provided higher sensitivity (78% vs 50%, P<0.0001) and specificity (80% vs 71%, P<0.0005). Among segments with > or =55% sestamibi uptake (viable), those with detectable wall thickening had a higher likelihood of functional recovery than those with absent wall thickening (95% vs 77%, P<0.05). In segments with improved function, the absence of wall thickening was associated with lower sestamibi activity than was observed when detectable wall thickening was present (58+/-14% vs 71+/-13%, P<0.0005). An increase in EF of > or =5% was detectable in 22 (54%) patients. For the prediction of EF improvement, perfusion imaging provided a higher sensitivity than wall thickening analysis (68% vs 41%, P<0.05), while specificity was not significantly different (68% vs 74%). The prevalence of patients with functional recovery did not change when wall thickening analysis was considered in addition to perfusion status (73% in patients with detectable wall thickening and 70% in those without; P=NS). CONCLUSION: In patients with coronary artery disease, wall thickening analysis by gated perfusion SPECT provides additional information compared with perfusion data for the prediction of segmental functional recovery. However, on a patient basis, wall thickening assessment seems to be of more limited value than perfusion status.
Authors: K Lauerma; P Niemi; H Hänninen; T Janatuinen; L M Voipio-Pulkki; J Knuuti; L Toivonen; T Mäkelä; M A Mäkijärvi; H J Aronen Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M G Levine; C C McGill; A W Ahlberg; M P White; S Giri; B Shareef; D Waters; G V Heller Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1999-01-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: M Mabuchi; N Kubo; K Morita; Y Makino; Y Matsui; T Murashita; K Yasuda; E Tsukamoto; N Tamaki Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Kenneth J Nichols; Andrew Van Tosh; Yi Wang; Tracy L Faber; Christopher J Palestro; Nathaniel Reichek Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-11-26 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Riemer H J A Slart; Jeroen J Bax; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Ernst E van der Wall; Rudi A Dierckx; Jaep de Boer; Pieter L Jager Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.952