PURPOSE: Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a nonischaemic cardiomyopathy and leading cause of sudden death in the young. It has been shown that microvascular dysfunction reflected by an impaired myocardial blood flow (MBF) response to stress is present in patients with other forms of nonischaemic cardiomyopathy, e.g. dilated cardiomyopathy, and that the reduced MBF may be related to a poor prognosis. Therefore, we quantified MBF, coronary flow reserve and coronary vascular resistance in patients with nonfailing ARVC using H(2)(15)O and PET. METHODS: In ten male patients with ARVC (mean age 49 ± 14 years), MBF was quantified at rest and during adenosine-induced hyperaemia using H(2)(15)O PET. Results were compared with those obtained in 20 age-matched healthy male control subjects (mean age 46 ± 14 years). RESULTS: Resting MBF was not significantly different between patients with ARVC and controls (MBF(rest) 1.19 ± 0.29 vs. 1.12 ± 0.20 ml/min/ml). However, hyperaemic MBF was significantly lower in patients with ARVC than in controls (2.60 ± 0.96 vs. 3.68 ± 0.84 ml/min/ml; p = 0.005). Consequently, patients with ARVC had a significantly lower coronary flow reserve than control subjects (2.41 ± 1.34 vs. 3.39 ± 0.93; p = 0.030). In addition, hyperaemic coronary vascular resistance was increased in patients with ARVC (36.79 ± 12.91 vs. 26.31 ± 6.49 mmHg × ml(-1) × min × ml; p = 0.007), but was found to be unchanged at rest. CONCLUSION: In this small well-characterized cohort of patients with nonfailing ARVC, we found a significantly reduced hyperaemic MBF and increased coronary vascular resistance. Further studies are necessary to corroborate this potential new functional aspect of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying ARVC.
PURPOSE:Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a nonischaemic cardiomyopathy and leading cause of sudden death in the young. It has been shown that microvascular dysfunction reflected by an impaired myocardial blood flow (MBF) response to stress is present in patients with other forms of nonischaemic cardiomyopathy, e.g. dilated cardiomyopathy, and that the reduced MBF may be related to a poor prognosis. Therefore, we quantified MBF, coronary flow reserve and coronary vascular resistance in patients with nonfailing ARVC using H(2)(15)O and PET. METHODS: In ten male patients with ARVC (mean age 49 ± 14 years), MBF was quantified at rest and during adenosine-induced hyperaemia using H(2)(15)O PET. Results were compared with those obtained in 20 age-matched healthy male control subjects (mean age 46 ± 14 years). RESULTS: Resting MBF was not significantly different between patients with ARVC and controls (MBF(rest) 1.19 ± 0.29 vs. 1.12 ± 0.20 ml/min/ml). However, hyperaemic MBF was significantly lower in patients with ARVC than in controls (2.60 ± 0.96 vs. 3.68 ± 0.84 ml/min/ml; p = 0.005). Consequently, patients with ARVC had a significantly lower coronary flow reserve than control subjects (2.41 ± 1.34 vs. 3.39 ± 0.93; p = 0.030). In addition, hyperaemic coronary vascular resistance was increased in patients with ARVC (36.79 ± 12.91 vs. 26.31 ± 6.49 mmHg × ml(-1) × min × ml; p = 0.007), but was found to be unchanged at rest. CONCLUSION: In this small well-characterized cohort of patients with nonfailing ARVC, we found a significantly reduced hyperaemic MBF and increased coronary vascular resistance. Further studies are necessary to corroborate this potential new functional aspect of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying ARVC.
Authors: Klaus P Schäfers; Terence J Spinks; Paolo G Camici; Peter M Bloomfield; Christopher G Rhodes; Marilyn P Law; Christopher S R Baker; Ornella Rimoldi Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Frank I Marcus; William J McKenna; Duane Sherrill; Cristina Basso; Barbara Bauce; David A Bluemke; Hugh Calkins; Domenico Corrado; Moniek G P J Cox; James P Daubert; Guy Fontaine; Kathleen Gear; Richard Hauer; Andrea Nava; Michael H Picard; Nikos Protonotarios; Jeffrey E Saffitz; Danita M Yoerger Sanborn; Jonathan S Steinberg; Harikrishna Tandri; Gaetano Thiene; Jeffrey A Towbin; Adalena Tsatsopoulou; Thomas Wichter; Wojciech Zareba Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-02-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Roberto M Lang; Michelle Bierig; Richard B Devereux; Frank A Flachskampf; Elyse Foster; Patricia A Pellikka; Michael H Picard; Mary J Roman; James Seward; Jack Shanewise; Scott Solomon; Kirk T Spencer; Martin St John Sutton; William Stewart Journal: Eur J Echocardiogr Date: 2006-02-02
Authors: R Campisi; J Czernin; H Schöder; J W Sayre; F D Marengo; M E Phelps; H R Schelbert Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-07-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: T Wichter; M Schäfers; C G Rhodes; M Borggrefe; H Lerch; A A Lammertsma; F Hermansen; O Schober; G Breithardt; P G Camici Journal: Circulation Date: 2000-04-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Matthias Paul; Thomas Wichter; Peter Kies; Joachim Gerss; Christian Wollmann; Kambiz Rahbar; Lars Eckardt; Günter Breithardt; Otmar Schober; Eric Schulze-Bahr; Michael Schäfers Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Felix T Range; Michael Schäfers; Tayfun Acil; Klaus P Schäfers; Peter Kies; Matthias Paul; Sven Hermann; Betty Brisse; Günter Breithardt; Otmar Schober; Thomas Wichter Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2007-06-29 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Guoliang Li; Guy H Fontaine; Shuanliang Fan; Yang Yan; Peter K Bode; Firat Duru; Robert Frank; Ardan M Saguner Journal: Cardiol J Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 2.737