BACKGROUND: We have previously reported normal values for LV mechanical synchrony from post-stress exercise (99m)Tc SPECT studies; the goal of this study was to develop normal values for mechanical synchrony from pharmacologic stress and rest (82)Rb PET studies and compare these values to a population of LBBB patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The normal population consisted of 40 patients with a low likelihood of coronary artery disease. The LBBB population consisted of 23 patients with ECG evidence of LBBB. All patients were imaged with pharmacologic stress and processed using SyncTool™ (Emory Cardiac Toolbox™). Means and standard deviations were calculated for the stress and rest phase parameters. Normal male and female phase standard deviation were 15.0 ± 7.0 and 13.2 ± 7.7, respectively, for stress (P = NS), and 22.7 ± 13.2 and 16.6 ± 14.3 for rest (P = NS). Normal male and female histogram bandwidth were 38.1 ± 13.3 and 32.0 ± 13.5, respectively, for stress (P = NS) and 50.8 ± 18.7 and 44.4 ± 44.9 for rest (P = NS). ROC analysis yielded a sensitivity/specificity as high as 80%/90% for males, and 92%/75% for females (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Normal values for LV mechanical synchrony have been developed for (82)Rb pharmacologic stress and rest PET studies; furthermore, the stress pharmacologic values do not differ significantly from our previously reported exercise post-stress SPECT normal values. Finally, ROC analysis confirmed that these normal values were able to differentiate normal and LBBB populations.
BACKGROUND: We have previously reported normal values for LV mechanical synchrony from post-stress exercise (99m)Tc SPECT studies; the goal of this study was to develop normal values for mechanical synchrony from pharmacologic stress and rest (82)Rb PET studies and compare these values to a population of LBBB patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The normal population consisted of 40 patients with a low likelihood of coronary artery disease. The LBBB population consisted of 23 patients with ECG evidence of LBBB. All patients were imaged with pharmacologic stress and processed using SyncTool™ (Emory Cardiac Toolbox™). Means and standard deviations were calculated for the stress and rest phase parameters. Normal male and female phase standard deviation were 15.0 ± 7.0 and 13.2 ± 7.7, respectively, for stress (P = NS), and 22.7 ± 13.2 and 16.6 ± 14.3 for rest (P = NS). Normal male and female histogram bandwidth were 38.1 ± 13.3 and 32.0 ± 13.5, respectively, for stress (P = NS) and 50.8 ± 18.7 and 44.4 ± 44.9 for rest (P = NS). ROC analysis yielded a sensitivity/specificity as high as 80%/90% for males, and 92%/75% for females (P = NS). CONCLUSIONS: Normal values for LV mechanical synchrony have been developed for (82)Rb pharmacologic stress and rest PET studies; furthermore, the stress pharmacologic values do not differ significantly from our previously reported exercise post-stress SPECT normal values. Finally, ROC analysis confirmed that these normal values were able to differentiate normal and LBBB populations.
Authors: Maureen M Henneman; Ji Chen; Petra Dibbets-Schneider; Marcel P Stokkel; Gabe B Bleeker; Claudia Ypenburg; Ernst E van der Wall; Martin J Schalij; Ernest V Garcia; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Ji Chen; Ernest V Garcia; Russell D Folks; C David Cooke; Tracy L Faber; E Lindsey Tauxe; Ami E Iskandrian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Kenneth J Nichols; Andrew Van Tosh; Saadi Siddiqi; Ji Chen; Ernest V Garcia; Christopher J Palestro; Nathaniel Reichek Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2008-08-10 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Serge D Van Kriekinge; Hidetaka Nishina; Muneo Ohba; Daniel S Berman; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mark A Trimble; Salvador Borges-Neto; Stuart Smallheiser; Ji Chen; Emily F Honeycutt; Linda K Shaw; Jaekyeong Heo; Robert A Pagnanelli; E Lindsey Tauxe; Ernest V Garcia; Fabio Esteves; Frank Seghatol-Eslami; G Neal Kay; Ami E Iskandrian Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2007-04-18 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Andrew Van Tosh; John R Votaw; C David Cooke; Nathaniel Reichek; Christopher J Palestro; Kenneth J Nichols Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Luis Eduardo Juarez-Orozco; Andrea Monroy-Gonzalez; Niek H J Prakken; Walter Noordzij; Juhani Knuuti; Robert A deKemp; Riemer H J A Slart Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 5.952