BACKGROUND: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) limits long-term survival after heart transplantation. Diagnostic and prognostic value of gated single photon emission computed tomography (gated SPECT) has not been documented in this setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 110 consecutive heart transplant recipients (with transplantation >18 months) who underwent stress-rest gated SPECT and coronary angiography within 1 month, and were clinically monitored in a single heart transplantation center. Visual scoring of perfusion and wall motion images used a 16-segment model. Left ventricular function was automatically calculated. Coronary angiography was normal in 64 patients (58%) and abnormal in 46 (any CAV, 42%), of whom 19 had severe stenoses. Sensitivity and negative predictive (NPV) value were .63 and .75 for identification of any CAV, and .84 and .96 for severe CAV. Cox regression analysis showed that independent predictors of cardiac death and retransplantation were the presence of any angiographic CAV lesions (RR = 8.816, P = .043) and a stress perfusion defect >3 segments (RR = 5.607, P = .0053). A stress perfusion defect >3 segments predicted the need for late coronary revascularization >2 months (RR = 6.11, P = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that perfusion gated SPECT is a useful noninvasive screening test and may be proposed to help identify heart transplant recipients with a high risk of poor clinical outcome. A normal gated SPECT was associated with a low risk of cardiac hard event and might alleviate the need for coronary angiography.
BACKGROUND:Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) limits long-term survival after heart transplantation. Diagnostic and prognostic value of gated single photon emission computed tomography (gated SPECT) has not been documented in this setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 110 consecutive heart transplant recipients (with transplantation >18 months) who underwent stress-rest gated SPECT and coronary angiography within 1 month, and were clinically monitored in a single heart transplantation center. Visual scoring of perfusion and wall motion images used a 16-segment model. Left ventricular function was automatically calculated. Coronary angiography was normal in 64 patients (58%) and abnormal in 46 (any CAV, 42%), of whom 19 had severe stenoses. Sensitivity and negative predictive (NPV) value were .63 and .75 for identification of any CAV, and .84 and .96 for severe CAV. Cox regression analysis showed that independent predictors of cardiac death and retransplantation were the presence of any angiographic CAV lesions (RR = 8.816, P = .043) and a stress perfusion defect >3 segments (RR = 5.607, P = .0053). A stress perfusion defect >3 segments predicted the need for late coronary revascularization >2 months (RR = 6.11, P = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that perfusion gated SPECT is a useful noninvasive screening test and may be proposed to help identify heart transplant recipients with a high risk of poor clinical outcome. A normal gated SPECT was associated with a low risk of cardiac hard event and might alleviate the need for coronary angiography.
Authors: D M Howarth; L A Forstrom; V Samudrala; L J Sinak; C G McGregor; R J Rodeheffer; M Howarth; A Forstrom; J Sinak; G McGregor; J Rodeheffer Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 1996-02 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: A Kuettner; T Beck; T Drosch; K Kettering; M Heuschmid; C Burgstahler; C D Claussen; A F Kopp; S Schroeder Journal: Heart Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: T Sharir; G Germano; X Kang; H C Lewin; R Miranda; I Cohen; R D Agafitei; J D Friedman; D S Berman Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: M Allen-Auerbach; H Schöder; J Johnson; K Kofoed; K Einhorn; M E Phelps; J Kobashigawa; J Czernin Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Mohamad H Yamani; Showkat A Haji; Randall C Starling; E Murat Tuzcu; Norman B Ratliff; Daniel J Cook; Ashraf Abdo; Tim Crowe; Michelle Secic; Patrick McCarthy; James B Young Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2002-03-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: G Derumeaux; M Redonnet; D Mouton-Schleifer; J P Bessou; A Cribier; N Saoudi; R Koning; R Soyer; B Letac Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: E Gordon Depuey; John J Mahmarian; Todd D Miller; Andrew J Einstein; Christopher L Hansen; Thomas A Holly; Edward J Miller; Donna M Polk; L Samuel Wann Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Venkatesh L Murthy; Timothy M Bateman; Rob S Beanlands; Daniel S Berman; Salvador Borges-Neto; Panithaya Chareonthaitawee; Manuel D Cerqueira; Robert A deKemp; E Gordon DePuey; Vasken Dilsizian; Sharmila Dorbala; Edward P Ficaro; Ernest V Garcia; Henry Gewirtz; Gary V Heller; Howard C Lewin; Saurabh Malhotra; April Mann; Terrence D Ruddy; Thomas H Schindler; Ronald G Schwartz; Piotr J Slomka; Prem Soman; Marcelo F Di Carli; Andrew Einstein; Raymond Russell; James R Corbett Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Paco E Bravo; Brian A Bergmark; Tomas Vita; Viviany R Taqueti; Ankur Gupta; Sara Seidelmann; Thomas E Christensen; Michael T Osborne; Nishant R Shah; Nina Ghosh; Jon Hainer; Courtney F Bibbo; Meagan Harrington; Fred Costantino; Mandeep R Mehra; Sharmila Dorbala; Ron Blankstein; Akshay Desai; Lynne Stevenson; Michael M Givertz; Marcelo F Di Carli Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-01-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Jesse F Veenis; Hendrik J Boiten; Jan C van den Berge; Kadir Caliskan; Alex P W M Maat; Roelf Valkema; Alina A Constantinescu; Olivier C Manintveld; Felix Zijlstra; Ron T van Domburg; Arend F L Schinkel Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 5.952