BACKGROUND: Little is known about the incremental value of real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) as an adjunct to pharmacologic stress testing. This study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic value of MCE to detect abnormal myocardial perfusion by technetium Tc 99m sestamibi-single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and anatomically significant coronary artery disease (CAD) by angiography. METHODS: Myocardial contrast echocardiography was performed at rest and during vasodilator stress in consecutive patients (N = 120) undergoing SPECT imaging for known or suspected CAD. Myocardial opacification, wall motion, and tracer uptake were visually analyzed in 12 myocardial segments by 2 pairs of blinded observers. Concordance between the 2 methods was assessed using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Of 1356 segments, 1025 (76%) were interpretable by MCE, wall motion, and SPECT. Sensitivity of wall motion was 75%, specificity 83%, and accuracy 81% for detecting abnormal myocardial perfusion by SPECT (kappa = 0.53). Myocardial contrast echocardiography and wall motion together yielded significantly higher sensitivity (85% vs 74%, P < .05), specificity of 83%, and accuracy of 85% (kappa = 0.64) for the detection of abnormal myocardial perfusion. In 89 patients who underwent coronary angiography, MCE and wall motion together yielded higher sensitivity (83% vs 64%, P < .05) and accuracy (77% vs 68%, P < .05) but similar specificity (72%) compared with SPECT for the detection of high-grade, stenotic (> or = 75%) coronary lesions. CONCLUSION: Assessment of myocardial perfusion adds value to conventional stress echocardiography by increasing its sensitivity for the detection of functionally abnormal myocardial perfusion. Myocardial contrast echocardiography and wall motion together provide higher sensitivity and accuracy for detection of CAD compared with SPECT.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the incremental value of real-time myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) as an adjunct to pharmacologic stress testing. This study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic value of MCE to detect abnormal myocardial perfusion by technetium Tc 99m sestamibi-single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and anatomically significant coronary artery disease (CAD) by angiography. METHODS: Myocardial contrast echocardiography was performed at rest and during vasodilator stress in consecutive patients (N = 120) undergoing SPECT imaging for known or suspected CAD. Myocardial opacification, wall motion, and tracer uptake were visually analyzed in 12 myocardial segments by 2 pairs of blinded observers. Concordance between the 2 methods was assessed using the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Of 1356 segments, 1025 (76%) were interpretable by MCE, wall motion, and SPECT. Sensitivity of wall motion was 75%, specificity 83%, and accuracy 81% for detecting abnormal myocardial perfusion by SPECT (kappa = 0.53). Myocardial contrast echocardiography and wall motion together yielded significantly higher sensitivity (85% vs 74%, P < .05), specificity of 83%, and accuracy of 85% (kappa = 0.64) for the detection of abnormal myocardial perfusion. In 89 patients who underwent coronary angiography, MCE and wall motion together yielded higher sensitivity (83% vs 64%, P < .05) and accuracy (77% vs 68%, P < .05) but similar specificity (72%) compared with SPECT for the detection of high-grade, stenotic (> or = 75%) coronary lesions. CONCLUSION: Assessment of myocardial perfusion adds value to conventional stress echocardiography by increasing its sensitivity for the detection of functionally abnormal myocardial perfusion. Myocardial contrast echocardiography and wall motion together provide higher sensitivity and accuracy for detection of CAD compared with SPECT.
Authors: Sahar S Abdelmoneim; Mathieu Bernier; Abhijeet Dhoble; Stuart Moir; Mary E Hagen; Sue Ann C Ness; Patricia A Pellikka; Samir S Abdel-Kader; Sharon L Mulvagh Journal: Heart Vessels Date: 2010-03-26 Impact factor: 2.037
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
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