PURPOSE: The prognostic meaning of a post-stress ejection fraction (EF) decrease detected by perfusion gated SPECT is still unclear.We therefore followed up patients with post-stress EF decrease in the absence of stress-induced perfusion abnormalities. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 57 consecutive patients with post-stress EF drop ≥ 5 EF units and summed difference score (SDS) ≤ 1. They were followed up for more than 1 year and their outcome was compared with a group of sex- and age-matched controls with the same SDS but without EF decrease. RESULTS: During follow-up there were 13 events (1 cardiac death, 1 non-fatal myocardial infarction, 1 congestive heart failure and 10 late revascularizations). In the control group we registered six events. There was a significant difference (p<0.0001) between the event-free survival curves of the two groups. CONCLUSION: The event rate of patients with post-stress EF decrease ≥ 5 EF units is relatively high and is significantly worse than that of a control group of patients with similarly normal SDS but without EF changes. Therefore, a post-stress EF decrease without stress-induced perfusion abnormalities should be cautiously interpreted.
PURPOSE: The prognostic meaning of a post-stress ejection fraction (EF) decrease detected by perfusion gated SPECT is still unclear.We therefore followed up patients with post-stress EF decrease in the absence of stress-induced perfusion abnormalities. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 57 consecutive patients with post-stress EF drop ≥ 5 EF units and summed difference score (SDS) ≤ 1. They were followed up for more than 1 year and their outcome was compared with a group of sex- and age-matched controls with the same SDS but without EF decrease. RESULTS: During follow-up there were 13 events (1 cardiac death, 1 non-fatal myocardial infarction, 1 congestive heart failure and 10 late revascularizations). In the control group we registered six events. There was a significant difference (p<0.0001) between the event-free survival curves of the two groups. CONCLUSION: The event rate of patients with post-stress EF decrease ≥ 5 EF units is relatively high and is significantly worse than that of a control group of patients with similarly normal SDS but without EF changes. Therefore, a post-stress EF decrease without stress-induced perfusion abnormalities should be cautiously interpreted.
Authors: L L Johnson; S A Verdesca; W Y Aude; R C Xavier; L T Nott; M W Campanella; G Germano Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1997-12 Impact factor: 24.094
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: R G Groutars; J F Verzijlbergen; A J Muller; C A Ascoop; M M Tiel-van Buul; A H Zwinderman; N M van Hemel; E E van der Wall Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2000 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: R Hachamovitch; D S Berman; L J Shaw; H Kiat; I Cohen; J A Cabico; J Friedman; G A Diamond Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-02-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A R Galassi; S Azzarelli; A Tomaselli; R Giosofatto; A Ragusa; S Musumeci; C Tamburino; G Giuffrida Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2001-07-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Hein J Verberne; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; G Aernout Somsen; Berthe L F van Eck-Smit Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2003 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: C Marcassa; R Giubbini; W Acampa; C Cittanti; O Djepaxhija; A Gimelli; A Kokomani; G Medolago; E Milan; R Sciagrà Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Andrew Van Tosh; John R Votaw; Nathaniel Reichek; Christopher J Palestro; Kenneth J Nichols Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 5.952