Literature DB >> 1939949

Thallium-201 for assessment of myocardial viability: quantitative comparison of 24-hour redistribution imaging with imaging after reinjection at rest.

D S Kayden1, S Sigal, R Soufer, J Mattera, B L Zaret, F J Wackers.   

Abstract

Redistribution thallium-201 imaging 2 to 4 h after exercise may be incomplete and therefore may be inadequate to fully assess myocardial variability. Late redistribution imaging 24 h after exercise has been proposed to overcome this limitation of thallium stress imaging. However, because of poor count density the image quality on these studies is often suboptimal. In the present study the diagnostic information on 24-h planar thallium redistribution images was compared with that on images obtained after a reinjection of thallium at rest. Eighty-four patients with a stress thallium-201 defect had delayed redistribution imaging after 2 to 4 h and 24 h later, and again after an injection of thallium at rest. Defect reversibility on 24-h redistribution images was compared quantitatively with that on images after injection of thallium at rest. The quality of thallium images at rest was consistently better than that of 24-h redistribution images. Poor quality studies occurred in 13% of 24-h redistribution images compared with 0.4% of the studies at rest. Significantly more defect reversibility was detected on images after the reinjection at rest. Of 41 patients who appeared to have a fixed defect at 2- to 4-h redistribution imaging, 11 (27%) had a reversible defect by 24-h redistribution imaging compared with 29 (71%) after thallium-201 reinjection. No clinical variables at the time of stress testing were predictive of late defect reversibility. It is concluded that in patients with fixed a thallium defect at 2 to 4 h after exercise, reimaging after a reinjection at rest provides better diagnostic information than does 24-h late redistribution imaging.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1939949     DOI: 10.1016/0735-1097(91)90678-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  13 in total

1.  Comparative accuracy of various Tl-201 reinjection imaging protocols to detect myocardial viability.

Authors:  H Naruse; T Kondo; T Arii; M Morita; M Ohyanagi; T Iwasaki; M Fukuchi
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 2.668

Review 2.  Radionuclide techniques for the assessment of myocardial viability.

Authors:  E Skoufis; A I McGhie
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  1998

3.  Myocardial viability: seeking relevance and redefinition.

Authors:  J A Arrighi; R Soufer
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  Thallium 201 for detection of viable myocardium: comparison of different reinjection protocols.

Authors:  L Favaro; F Masini; W Serra; G Gavaruzzi; G Benecchi; S Tagliavini; G Botti
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  1994 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 5.  The maze of myocardial perfusion imaging protocols in 1994.

Authors:  F J Wackers
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  1994 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.952

6.  Clearance of thallium-201 from the peripheral blood: comparison of immediate and standard thallium-201 reinjection.

Authors:  B L van Eck-Smit; E E van der Wall; P P Verhoeven; S Poots; A H Zwinderman; E K Pauwels
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1996-02

Review 7.  Diagnostic and imaging considerations: role of viability.

Authors:  Roxy Senior
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.214

8.  Value of thallium-201 early reinjection for assessment of myocardial viability.

Authors:  H Yoshida; K Sakata; M Mochizuki; T Kouyama; Y Matsumoto; M Takezawa; M Yoshimura; N Ono; N Mori; S Yokoyama
Journal:  Ann Nucl Med       Date:  1994-02       Impact factor: 2.668

9.  Twenty-four-hour quantitative thallium imaging for predicting beneficial revascularization.

Authors:  J Taki; K Nakajima; H Bunko; M Kawasuji; N Tonami; K Hisada
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1994-11

Review 10.  Myocardial viability: what do we need?

Authors:  H Schoeder; M Friedrich; H Topp
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med       Date:  1993-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.