PURPOSE: There are limited data on whether differences exist in left ventricular (LV) mechanical dyssynchrony indices derived from stress versus rest gated positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with normal myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). METHODS: Stress/rest (82)Rb gated PET was performed in consecutive patients with normal MPI between 2006 and 2010. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1 [LV ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 55% and QRS < 120 ms] and group 2 (LVEF ≤35%). Images were acquired on a dedicated PET scanner prior to and on a hybrid PET/CT system after November 2008. LV dyssynchrony indices [phase standard deviation (SD)° and SD (ms)] were derived from stress and rest gated images. RESULTS: There were 91 patients in group 1 (age 61 ± 13, LVEF 66 ± 8%, normal QRS) and 126 in group 2 (age 66 ± 12, LVEF 25 ± 7%). The stress derived LVEF were significantly higher than rest for either group (p < 0.0001). Patients with cardiomyopathy had significantly higher dyssynchrony indices compared to those with normal LVEF (rest SD° 49.2 ± 21.5° vs 16.8 ± 7.8° and stress SD° 42.5 ± 19.4° vs 12.4 ± 3.7°, respectively, p < 0.0001 for both). The dyssynchrony indices derived from rest gated images were significantly higher than those derived from stress in both groups (p < 0.001 by unpaired and paired t test) and irrespective of the type of PET scanner utilized. Finally, 20/87 (23%) patients with normal LVEF and 27/66 (41%) of those with cardiomyopathy but without dyssynchrony based on stress indices were recategorized as having significant dyssynchrony given their resting indices. CONCLUSION: LV mechanical dyssynchrony indices by phase analysis are smaller when derived from peak stress versus rest gated PET imaging in patients with normal MPI, irrespective of the resting LVEF.
PURPOSE: There are limited data on whether differences exist in left ventricular (LV) mechanical dyssynchrony indices derived from stress versus rest gated positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with normal myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). METHODS: Stress/rest (82)Rb gated PET was performed in consecutive patients with normal MPI between 2006 and 2010. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1 [LV ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 55% and QRS < 120 ms] and group 2 (LVEF ≤35%). Images were acquired on a dedicated PET scanner prior to and on a hybrid PET/CT system after November 2008. LV dyssynchrony indices [phase standard deviation (SD)° and SD (ms)] were derived from stress and rest gated images. RESULTS: There were 91 patients in group 1 (age 61 ± 13, LVEF 66 ± 8%, normal QRS) and 126 in group 2 (age 66 ± 12, LVEF 25 ± 7%). The stress derived LVEF were significantly higher than rest for either group (p < 0.0001). Patients with cardiomyopathy had significantly higher dyssynchrony indices compared to those with normal LVEF (rest SD° 49.2 ± 21.5° vs 16.8 ± 7.8° and stress SD° 42.5 ± 19.4° vs 12.4 ± 3.7°, respectively, p < 0.0001 for both). The dyssynchrony indices derived from rest gated images were significantly higher than those derived from stress in both groups (p < 0.001 by unpaired and paired t test) and irrespective of the type of PET scanner utilized. Finally, 20/87 (23%) patients with normal LVEF and 27/66 (41%) of those with cardiomyopathy but without dyssynchrony based on stress indices were recategorized as having significant dyssynchrony given their resting indices. CONCLUSION: LV mechanical dyssynchrony indices by phase analysis are smaller when derived from peak stress versus rest gated PET imaging in patients with normal MPI, irrespective of the resting LVEF.
Authors: Wael AlJaroudi; Wael A Jaber; Richard A Grimm; Thomas Marwick; Manuel D Cerqueira Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Ji Chen; Ernest V Garcia; Jeroen J Bax; Ami E Iskandrian; Salvador Borges-Neto; Prem Soman Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Mati Friehling; Ji Chen; Samir Saba; Raveen Bazaz; David Schwartzman; Evan C Adelstein; Ernest Garcia; William Follansbee; Prem Soman Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 7.792
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: Maureen M Henneman; Ji Chen; Claudia Ypenburg; Petra Dibbets; Gabe B Bleeker; Eric Boersma; Marcel P Stokkel; Ernst E van der Wall; Ernest V Garcia; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-04-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Wael AlJaroudi; M Chadi Alraies; Venu Menon; Richard C Brunken; Manuel D Cerqueira; Wael A Jaber Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Christopher Uebleis; Xaver Hoyer; Serge D Van Kriekinge; Franziska Schuessler; Rüdiger Paul Laubender; Alexander Becker; Sebastian Lehner; Andrei Todica; Alexander Haug; Peter Bartenstein; Paul Cumming; Guido Germano; Marcus Hacker Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Samaneh Salimian; Bernard Thibault; Vincent Finnerty; Jean Grégoire; François Harel Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Wael AlJaroudi; M Chadi Alraies; Rory Hachamovitch; Wael A Jaber; Richard Brunken; Manuel D Cerqueira; Thomas Marwick Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-06-15 Impact factor: 9.236