Literature DB >> 19164219

Comparison between the prognostic value of left ventricular function and myocardial perfusion reserve in patients with ischemic heart disease.

René A Tio1, Ali Dabeshlim, Hans-Marc J Siebelink, Johan de Sutter, Hans L Hillege, Clark J Zeebregts, Rudi A J O Dierckx, Dirk J van Veldhuisen, Felix Zijlstra, Riemer H J A Slart.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to compare the prognostic value of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) assessed with PET in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD). Myocardial perfusion is the main determinant of left ventricular function in patients with IHD. The prognostic value of LVEF has been widely established. In addition, MPR determines survival in patients with hypertrophic and dilated cardiomyopathies. In the present study, we evaluated whether MPR also determines survival in patients with IHD.
METHODS: Between 1995 and 2003, 480 consecutive patients with chronic IHD underwent dipyridamole stress and rest 13N-ammonia PET to determine MPR. Additionally, 18F-FDG PET was performed for viability (mismatching defects), infarction (matching defects), and left ventricular function assessment. Patients were followed for all causes of mortality and major cardiovascular events.
RESULTS: In 463 of the 480 patients, valid MPR could be measured (368 men; mean age, 66+/-11 y; LVEF, 35%+/-15%). One hundred nineteen patients underwent a PET-driven revascularization (67 through percutaneous coronary intervention and 52 through coronary artery bypass grafting). The remaining 344 patients were the subject of this study. The overall MPR was 1.71+/-0.50 (intertertile boundaries, 1.49 and 1.84). After adjustment for age and sex, MPR was associated with a hazard ratio for cardiac death of 4.11 (95% confidence interval, 2.98-5.67) per SD decrease, whereas the risk for LVEF was 2.76 (2.00-3.82) per SD decrease.
CONCLUSION: Patients with IHD with a low MPR are at high risk of cardiac death. MPR is a more sensitive predictor for cardiac death than is LVEF.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19164219     DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.108.054395

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  75 in total

Review 1.  PET: Is myocardial flow quantification a clinical reality?

Authors:  Antti Saraste; Sami Kajander; Chunlei Han; Sergey V Nesterov; Juhani Knuuti
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 2.  Prognosis in the era of comparative effectiveness research: where is nuclear cardiology now and where should it be?

Authors:  Leslee J Shaw; Fadi G Hage; Daniel S Berman; Rory Hachamovitch; Ami Iskandrian
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  Intra- and inter-operator repeatability of myocardial blood flow and myocardial flow reserve measurements using rubidium-82 pet and a highly automated analysis program.

Authors:  Ran Klein; Jennifer M Renaud; Maria C Ziadi; Stephanie L Thorn; Andy Adler; Rob S Beanlands; Robert A deKemp
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 4.  The clinical utility of assessing myocardial blood flow using positron emission tomography.

Authors:  Maria Cecilia Ziadi; Rob S B Beanlands
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 5.  Left main coronary artery disease: A review of the spectrum of noninvasive diagnostic modalities.

Authors:  Nishtha Sareen; Karthik Ananthasubramaniam
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 6.  Clinical use of quantitative cardiac perfusion PET: rationale, modalities and possible indications. Position paper of the Cardiovascular Committee of the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM).

Authors:  Roberto Sciagrà; Alessandro Passeri; Jan Bucerius; Hein J Verberne; Riemer H J A Slart; Oliver Lindner; Alessia Gimelli; Fabien Hyafil; Denis Agostini; Christopher Übleis; Marcus Hacker
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-02-05       Impact factor: 9.236

7.  Ischaemic vs non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy: The value of nuclear cardiology techniques.

Authors:  Federico Caobelli; Frank M Bengel
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 8.  The role of radionuclide imaging in heart failure.

Authors:  Vinay Gulati; Gilbert Ching; Gary V Heller
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.952

9.  Insulin resistance is a major determinant of myocardial blood flow impairment in anginal patients.

Authors:  Riccardo Liga; Daniele Rovai; Tiziana Sampietro; Cecilia Vecoli; Giancarlo Todiere; Chiara Caselli; Giuseppe Rossi; Antonio L'abbate; Danilo Neglia
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2013-09-11       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  Improved cardiac risk assessment with noninvasive measures of coronary flow reserve.

Authors:  Venkatesh L Murthy; Masanao Naya; Courtney R Foster; Jon Hainer; Mariya Gaber; Gilda Di Carli; Ron Blankstein; Sharmila Dorbala; Arkadiusz Sitek; Michael J Pencina; Marcelo F Di Carli
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 29.690

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.