BACKGROUND: Extensive left ventricular (LV) remodeling may not allow functional recovery after revascularization, despite the presence of viable myocardium. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-nine consecutive patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricle ejection fraction [LVEF] 29+/-7%) underwent surgical revascularization. Before revascularization, viability was assessed by metabolic imaging with F18-fluorodeoxyglucose and SPECT. LV volumes and LVEF were assessed by resting echocardiography. LVEF was re-assessed by echocardiography 8 to 12 months after revascularization. Three-year clinical follow-up (events: cardiac death, infarction, and hospitalization for heart failure) was also obtained. Forty-nine patients had substantial viability; 5 died before re-assessment of LVEF. Of the remaining 44 patients, 24 improved > or =5% in LVEF after revascularization, whereas 20 did not improve in LVEF. LV end-systolic volume was the only parameter that was significantly different between the groups (109+/-46 mL for the improvers versus 141+/-31 mL for the nonimprovers; P<0.05). The change in LVEF after revascularization was linearly related to the baseline LV end-systolic volume, with a higher LV end-systolic volume associated with a low likelihood of improvement in LVEF after revascularization. During the 3-year follow-up, the highest event-rate (67%) was observed in patients without viable myocardium with a large LV size, whereas the lowest event rate (5%) was observed in patients with viable myocardium and a small LV size. Intermediate event rates were observed in patients with viable myocardium and a large LV size (38%), and in patients without viable myocardium and a small LV size (24%). CONCLUSIONS: Extensive LV remodeling prohibits improvement in LVEF after revascularization and affects long-term prognosis negatively, despite the presence of viability.
BACKGROUND: Extensive left ventricular (LV) remodeling may not allow functional recovery after revascularization, despite the presence of viable myocardium. METHODS AND RESULTS: Seventy-nine consecutive patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (left ventricle ejection fraction [LVEF] 29+/-7%) underwent surgical revascularization. Before revascularization, viability was assessed by metabolic imaging with F18-fluorodeoxyglucose and SPECT. LV volumes and LVEF were assessed by resting echocardiography. LVEF was re-assessed by echocardiography 8 to 12 months after revascularization. Three-year clinical follow-up (events: cardiac death, infarction, and hospitalization for heart failure) was also obtained. Forty-nine patients had substantial viability; 5 died before re-assessment of LVEF. Of the remaining 44 patients, 24 improved > or =5% in LVEF after revascularization, whereas 20 did not improve in LVEF. LV end-systolic volume was the only parameter that was significantly different between the groups (109+/-46 mL for the improvers versus 141+/-31 mL for the nonimprovers; P<0.05). The change in LVEF after revascularization was linearly related to the baseline LV end-systolic volume, with a higher LV end-systolic volume associated with a low likelihood of improvement in LVEF after revascularization. During the 3-year follow-up, the highest event-rate (67%) was observed in patients without viable myocardium with a large LV size, whereas the lowest event rate (5%) was observed in patients with viable myocardium and a small LV size. Intermediate event rates were observed in patients with viable myocardium and a large LV size (38%), and in patients without viable myocardium and a small LV size (24%). CONCLUSIONS: Extensive LV remodeling prohibits improvement in LVEF after revascularization and affects long-term prognosis negatively, despite the presence of viability.
Authors: Tomas Skala; Martin Hutyra; Jan Vaclavik; Milan Kaminek; David Horak; Josef Novotny; Jana Zapletalova; Jan Lukl; Dan Marek; Milos Taborsky Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-08-20 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: A Bailly; J Lipiecki; P Chabrot; A Alfidja; J M Garcier; S Ughetto; J Ponsonnaille; L Boyer Journal: Surg Radiol Anat Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 1.246
Authors: David Hürlimann; Susann Schmidt; Burkhardt Seifert; Ardan M Saguner; Gerhard Hindricks; Thomas F Lüscher; Frank Ruschitzka; Jan Steffel Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-10-10 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: L De Luca; G Sardella; C J Davidson; G De Persio; M Beraldi; T Tommasone; M Mancone; B L Nguyen; L Agati; M Gheorghiade; F Fedele Journal: Heart Date: 2005-10-26 Impact factor: 5.994
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
Authors: Tammy J Pegg; Joseph B Selvanayagam; Joslin Jennifer; Jane M Francis; Theodoros D Karamitsos; Erica Dall'Armellina; Karen L Smith; David P Taggart; Stefan Neubauer Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2010-10-07 Impact factor: 5.364