BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the cardiac effects of left bundle-branch block (LBBB) using myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) to ascertain the value of MCE for detecting coronary artery disease (CAD) and to uncover the mechanism that affects the accuracy of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-three symptomatic LBBB patients (group A), 10 left ventricular ejection fraction-matched control subjects without LBBB and no CAD (group B), and 10 normal control subjects (group C) underwent resting echocardiography. Rest and vasodilator MCE and SPECT were undertaken in LBBB patients. Septal (SW) and posterior wall (PW) thickness, thickening, quantitative myocardial blood flow (MBF), and MBF reserve were measured. SW/PW thickness and percentage thickening ratios were lower (P<0.01 and P<0.05, respectively) in group A compared with both groups B and C, but resting SW/PW MBF and MBF reserve ratios were similar in all 3 groups. MBF reserve but not MBF was reduced in groups A and B (2.2+/-0.7 versus 2.2+/-0.2; P=0.98) compared with group C (3.1+/-0.5; P<0.01). SW thickness was an independent predictor (P=0.006) of SPECT perfusion defects in LBBB patients without CAD. MCE (92%) had a sensitivity similar to SPECT (92%); however, the specificity of MCE (95%) was superior (P<0.0001) to SPECT (47%) for the detection of CAD. CONCLUSIONS: Despite asymmetrical reduction in SW thickness and function, MBF is preserved and MBF reserve is homogeneously reduced in LBBB patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Because of partial volume effects, the accuracy of SPECT for detecting CAD was significantly compromised compared with MCE in this patient cohort.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the cardiac effects of left bundle-branch block (LBBB) using myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) to ascertain the value of MCE for detecting coronary artery disease (CAD) and to uncover the mechanism that affects the accuracy of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in these patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-three symptomatic LBBB patients (group A), 10 left ventricular ejection fraction-matched control subjects without LBBB and no CAD (group B), and 10 normal control subjects (group C) underwent resting echocardiography. Rest and vasodilator MCE and SPECT were undertaken in LBBB patients. Septal (SW) and posterior wall (PW) thickness, thickening, quantitative myocardial blood flow (MBF), and MBF reserve were measured. SW/PW thickness and percentage thickening ratios were lower (P<0.01 and P<0.05, respectively) in group A compared with both groups B and C, but resting SW/PW MBF and MBF reserve ratios were similar in all 3 groups. MBF reserve but not MBF was reduced in groups A and B (2.2+/-0.7 versus 2.2+/-0.2; P=0.98) compared with group C (3.1+/-0.5; P<0.01). SW thickness was an independent predictor (P=0.006) of SPECT perfusion defects in LBBB patients without CAD. MCE (92%) had a sensitivity similar to SPECT (92%); however, the specificity of MCE (95%) was superior (P<0.0001) to SPECT (47%) for the detection of CAD. CONCLUSIONS: Despite asymmetrical reduction in SW thickness and function, MBF is preserved and MBF reserve is homogeneously reduced in LBBB patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Because of partial volume effects, the accuracy of SPECT for detecting CAD was significantly compromised compared with MCE in this patient cohort.
Authors: Elsemiek M Engbers; Jorik R Timmer; Jan Paul Ottervanger; Mohamed Mouden; Ad H J Oostdijk; Siert Knollema; Pieter L Jager Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 5.952
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: Elsemiek M Engbers; Jorik R Timmer; Mohamed Mouden; Siert Knollema; Pieter L Jager; Jan Paul Ottervanger Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 5.315