PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced MRI and nuclear imaging with (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) for assessment of myocardial viability. METHODS: Included in the study were 60 patients with severe ischaemic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction who underwent contrast-enhanced MRI, (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin and (18)F-FDG SPECT. Myocardial segments were assigned a wall motion score from 0 (normokinesia) to 4 (dyskinesia) and a scar score from 0 (no scar) to 4 (76-100% transmural extent). Furthermore, (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin and (18)F-FDG segmental tracer uptake was categorized from 0 (tracer activity >75%) to 3 (tracer activity <25%). Dysfunctional segments were classified into viability patterns on SPECT: normal perfusion/(18)F-FDG uptake, perfusion/(18)F-FDG mismatch, and mild or severe perfusion/(18)F-FDG match. RESULTS: Minimal scar tissue was observed on contrast-enhanced MRI (scar score 0.4+/-0.8) in segments with normal perfusion/(18)F-FDG uptake, whereas extensive scar tissue (scar score 3.1+/-1.0) was noted in segments with severe perfusion/(18)F-FDG match (p < 0.001). High agreement (91%) for viability assessment between contrast-enhanced MRI and nuclear imaging was observed in segments without scar tissue on contrast-enhanced MRI as well as in segments with transmural scar tissue (83%). Of interest, disagreement was observed in segments with subendocardial scar tissue on contrast-enhanced MRI. CONCLUSION: Agreement between contrast-enhanced MRI and nuclear imaging for assessment of viability was high in segments without scar tissue and in segments with transmural scar tissue on contrast-enhanced MRI. However, evident disagreement was observed in segments with subendocardial scar tissue on contrast-enhanced MRI, illustrating that the nonenhanced epicardial rim can contain either normal or ischaemically jeopardized myocardium.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced MRI and nuclear imaging with (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) for assessment of myocardial viability. METHODS: Included in the study were 60 patients with severe ischaemic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction who underwent contrast-enhanced MRI, (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin and (18)F-FDG SPECT. Myocardial segments were assigned a wall motion score from 0 (normokinesia) to 4 (dyskinesia) and a scar score from 0 (no scar) to 4 (76-100% transmural extent). Furthermore, (99m)Tc-tetrofosmin and (18)F-FDG segmental tracer uptake was categorized from 0 (tracer activity >75%) to 3 (tracer activity <25%). Dysfunctional segments were classified into viability patterns on SPECT: normal perfusion/(18)F-FDG uptake, perfusion/(18)F-FDG mismatch, and mild or severe perfusion/(18)F-FDG match. RESULTS: Minimal scar tissue was observed on contrast-enhanced MRI (scar score 0.4+/-0.8) in segments with normal perfusion/(18)F-FDG uptake, whereas extensive scar tissue (scar score 3.1+/-1.0) was noted in segments with severe perfusion/(18)F-FDG match (p < 0.001). High agreement (91%) for viability assessment between contrast-enhanced MRI and nuclear imaging was observed in segments without scar tissue on contrast-enhanced MRI as well as in segments with transmural scar tissue (83%). Of interest, disagreement was observed in segments with subendocardial scar tissue on contrast-enhanced MRI. CONCLUSION: Agreement between contrast-enhanced MRI and nuclear imaging for assessment of viability was high in segments without scar tissue and in segments with transmural scar tissue on contrast-enhanced MRI. However, evident disagreement was observed in segments with subendocardial scar tissue on contrast-enhanced MRI, illustrating that the nonenhanced epicardial rim can contain either normal or ischaemically jeopardized myocardium.
Authors: Christoph Klein; Stephan G Nekolla; Frank M Bengel; Mitsuru Momose; Andrea Sammer; Felix Haas; Bernhard Schnackenburg; Wolfram Delius; Harald Mudra; Dieter Wolfram; Markus Schwaiger Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: H J Lamb; J Doornbos; E A van der Velde; M C Kruit; J H Reiber; A de Roos Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1996 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: R J van der Geest; V G Buller; E Jansen; H J Lamb; L H Baur; E E van der Wall; A de Roos; J H Reiber Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 1997 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: J J Bax; J H Cornel; F C Visser; P M Fioretti; A van Lingen; A E Reijs; E Boersma; G J Teule; C A Visser Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1996-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: R J Kim; D S Fieno; T B Parrish; K Harris; E L Chen; O Simonetti; J Bundy; J P Finn; F J Klocke; R M Judd Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-11-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Harald P Kühl; Aernout M Beek; Arno P van der Weerdt; Mark B M Hofman; Cees A Visser; Adriaan A Lammertsma; Nicole Heussen; Frans C Visser; Albert C van Rossum Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2003-04-16 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: J Weisser-Thomas; V A Ferrari; A Lakghomi; L M Lickfett; G Nickenig; H H Schild; D Thomas Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2014-04-09 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Stijntje D Roes; Reza A Dehnavi; Jos J M Westenberg; Hildo J Lamb; Bart J A Mertens; Jouke T Tamsma; Albert de Roos Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Yeonyee E Yoon; Yoo Jin Hong; Hyung-Kwan Kim; Jeong A Kim; Jin Oh Na; Dong Hyun Yang; Young Jin Kim; Eui-Young Choi Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 3.500