BACKGROUND: The value of assessment of viability as a predictor of surgical revascularization benefit in ischemic cardiomyopathy has recently been questioned in a large trial. We sought to determine whether the contribution of viability as myocardial scar burden (SB) to predict revascularization outcomes could be modulated by end-systolic volume index (ESVi). METHODS AND RESULTS: Delayed hyperenhancement-MRI was obtained in 450 patients with ≥70% stenosis in ≥1 epicardial coronary artery (75% men; median age, 62.8 ± 10.7 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 23 ± 9%; mean ESVi, 115 ± 50 mL) from 2002 to 2006. SB was quantified as scar percentage (infarcted mass/total left ventricular mass). Subsequent surgical revascularization was performed in 245 (54%) patients and subsequent percutaneous coronary interventions were performed in 28 (6%) patients. A propensity score was developed for revascularization. Cox proportional hazards models of all-cause mortality were used for risk adjustment. Over a mean follow-up of 5.8 ± 2.7 years, 186 (41%) deaths occurred. After adjusting for prior revascularization, sex, diabetes, age, use of cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardioverter defibrillator, mitral regurgitation, and mitral valve procedures; an interaction between scar percentage and ESVi (P=0.016) and an interaction between post-MRI revascularization and ESVi (P=0.0017) were independently associated with mortality. ESVi demonstrated a significant interaction with revascularization and female sex, such that enhanced survival was associated with ESVi. ESVi also showed an interaction with SB; better survival was associated with lower volumes and less scar. CONCLUSIONS: ESVi and SB provide independent, incremental prognostic value in patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy. The risk associated with SB should not be assessed in isolation.
BACKGROUND: The value of assessment of viability as a predictor of surgical revascularization benefit in ischemic cardiomyopathy has recently been questioned in a large trial. We sought to determine whether the contribution of viability as myocardial scar burden (SB) to predict revascularization outcomes could be modulated by end-systolic volume index (ESVi). METHODS AND RESULTS: Delayed hyperenhancement-MRI was obtained in 450 patients with ≥70% stenosis in ≥1 epicardial coronary artery (75% men; median age, 62.8 ± 10.7 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction, 23 ± 9%; mean ESVi, 115 ± 50 mL) from 2002 to 2006. SB was quantified as scar percentage (infarcted mass/total left ventricular mass). Subsequent surgical revascularization was performed in 245 (54%) patients and subsequent percutaneous coronary interventions were performed in 28 (6%) patients. A propensity score was developed for revascularization. Cox proportional hazards models of all-cause mortality were used for risk adjustment. Over a mean follow-up of 5.8 ± 2.7 years, 186 (41%) deaths occurred. After adjusting for prior revascularization, sex, diabetes, age, use of cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardioverter defibrillator, mitral regurgitation, and mitral valve procedures; an interaction between scar percentage and ESVi (P=0.016) and an interaction between post-MRI revascularization and ESVi (P=0.0017) were independently associated with mortality. ESVi demonstrated a significant interaction with revascularization and female sex, such that enhanced survival was associated with ESVi. ESVi also showed an interaction with SB; better survival was associated with lower volumes and less scar. CONCLUSIONS: ESVi and SB provide independent, incremental prognostic value in patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy. The risk associated with SB should not be assessed in isolation.
Authors: Anca Florian; Tim Schäufele; Anna Ludwig; Sabine Rösch; Ina Wenzelburger; Handan Yildiz; Udo Sechtem; Ali Yilmaz Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Ramon Corbalan; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Laura Illingworth; Giuseppe Ambrosio; A John Camm; David A Fitzmaurice; Keith A A Fox; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Shinya Goto; Sylvia Haas; Gloria Kayani; Lorenzo G Mantovani; Frank Misselwitz; Karen S Pieper; Alexander G G Turpie; Freek W A Verheugt; Ajay K Kakkar Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Lawrence M Phillips; Rory Hachamovitch; Daniel S Berman; Ami E Iskandrian; James K Min; Michael H Picard; Raymond Y Kwong; Matthias G Friedrich; Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie; Sean W Hayes; Tali Sharir; Gilbert Gosselin; Marco Mazzanti; Roxy Senior; Rob Beanlands; Paola Smanio; Abhi Goyal; Mouaz Al-Mallah; Harmony Reynolds; Gregg W Stone; David J Maron; Leslee J Shaw Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Luiz Eduardo Mastrocola; Barbara Juarez Amorim; João Vicente Vitola; Simone Cristina Soares Brandão; Gabriel Blacher Grossman; Ronaldo de Souza Leão Lima; Rafael Willain Lopes; William Azem Chalela; Lara Cristiane Terra Ferreira Carreira; José Roberto Nolasco de Araújo; Cláudio Tinoco Mesquita; José Claudio Meneghetti Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Deborah H Kwon; Rory Hachamovitch; Aderonke Adeniyi; Benjamin Nutter; Zoran B Popovic; Bruce L Wilkoff; Milind Y Desai; Scott D Flamm; Thomas Marwick Journal: Heart Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 5.994