PURPOSE: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after myocardial infarction is considered to be determined by the size of the infarction and residual function of the spared myocardium. Myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) has been shown to be a strong prognostic factor in patients with ischaemic heart failure, even stronger than LVEF. In the present study, the interrelationship between MPR, LVEF and infarct size was investigated. METHODS: In total, 102 patients with a prior history of myocardial infarction were included. All underwent rest and stress (13)N-ammonia and gated (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) for evaluation of myocardial ischaemia and viability. FDG polar maps were used to determine the size of the infarction. The LVEF was obtained by gated (18)F-FDG PET or another available method within 3 months of the PET scan. MPR was obtained per segment in the spared myocardium. RESULTS: The mean age of the subjects was 68 ± 12 years. Global MPR was 1.63 ± 0.51. The mean LVEF was 36 ± 10 % and mean infarct size 23.72 ± 14.8 %. A linear regression model was applied for the analysis considering the LVEF as a dependent variable. All risk factors, mean stress flow, infarct size and MPR were entered as variables. The infarct size (p < 0.001) and MPR (p = 0.04) reached statistical significance. In a multivariate model MPR had a stronger correlation with LVEF than infarct size. CONCLUSION: In patients with a prior history of myocardial infarction, LVEF is not just related to infarct size but also to MPR in the spared myocardium.
PURPOSE: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after myocardial infarction is considered to be determined by the size of the infarction and residual function of the spared myocardium. Myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) has been shown to be a strong prognostic factor in patients with ischaemic heart failure, even stronger than LVEF. In the present study, the interrelationship between MPR, LVEF and infarct size was investigated. METHODS: In total, 102 patients with a prior history of myocardial infarction were included. All underwent rest and stress (13)N-ammonia and gated (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) for evaluation of myocardial ischaemia and viability. FDG polar maps were used to determine the size of the infarction. The LVEF was obtained by gated (18)F-FDG PET or another available method within 3 months of the PET scan. MPR was obtained per segment in the spared myocardium. RESULTS: The mean age of the subjects was 68 ± 12 years. Global MPR was 1.63 ± 0.51. The mean LVEF was 36 ± 10 % and mean infarct size 23.72 ± 14.8 %. A linear regression model was applied for the analysis considering the LVEF as a dependent variable. All risk factors, mean stress flow, infarct size and MPR were entered as variables. The infarct size (p < 0.001) and MPR (p = 0.04) reached statistical significance. In a multivariate model MPR had a stronger correlation with LVEF than infarct size. CONCLUSION: In patients with a prior history of myocardial infarction, LVEF is not just related to infarct size but also to MPR in the spared myocardium.
Authors: Kenji Fukushima; Mehrbod S Javadi; Takahiro Higuchi; Riikka Lautamäki; Jennifer Merrill; Stephan G Nekolla; Frank M Bengel Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: G D Hutchins; M Schwaiger; K C Rosenspire; J Krivokapich; H Schelbert; D E Kuhl Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1990-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Riemer H J A Slart; Clark J Zeebregts; Hans L Hillege; Johan de Sutter; Rudi A J O Dierckx; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Felix Zijlstra; René A Tio Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Francesco Prati; Sonia Petronio; Ad J Van Boven; Michal Tendera; Leonardo De Luca; Mark A de Belder; Alfredo R Galassi; Fabrizio Imola; Gilles Montalescot; Jan Z Peruga; Elliot S Barnathan; Stephen Ellis; Stefano Savonitto Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: R A Tio; R H J A Slart; R A de Boer; P A van der Vleuten; R M de Jong; L M van Wijk; T Willems; D D Lubbers; A A Voors; D J van Veldhuisen Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: M J Knuuti; H Yki-Järvinen; L M Voipio-Pulkki; M Mäki; U Ruotsalainen; R Härkönen; M Teräs; M Haaparanta; J Bergman; J Hartiala; U Wegelius; P Nuutila Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 1994-06 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Eric J Velazquez; Kerry L Lee; Christopher M O'Connor; Jae K Oh; Robert O Bonow; Gerald M Pohost; Arthur M Feldman; Daniel B Mark; Julio A Panza; George Sopko; Jean L Rouleau; Robert H Jones Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: G J Pelgrim; A Handayani; H Dijkstra; N H J Prakken; R H J A Slart; M Oudkerk; P M A Van Ooijen; R Vliegenthart; P E Sijens Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Luis Eduardo Juárez-Orozco; Friso M van der Zant; Riemer H J A Slart; Sergiy V Lazarenko; Erick Alexanderson; Rene A Tio; Remco J J Knol Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Adam Ali Ghotbi; Philip Hasbak; Lars Nepper-Christensen; Jacob Lønborg; Kiril Atharovski; Thomas Christensen; Lene Holmvang; Thomas Engstrøm; Rasmus Sejersten Ripa; Andreas Kjær Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: S A M Said; R M Oortman; J-H Hofstra; P M J Verhorst; R H J A Slart; M W de Haan; F Eerens; H J G M Crijns Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Luis Eduardo Juárez-Orozco; Erick Alexanderson; Rudi A Dierckx; Hendrikus H Boersma; Johannes L Hillege; Clark J Zeebregts; Myriam M Martínez-Aguilar; Antonio Jordán-Ríos; Ana Gabriela Ayala-German; Niek Prakken; Rene A Tio; Riemer H Slart Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Luis Eduardo Juarez-Orozco; Andrea G Monroy-Gonzalez; Friso M van der Zant; Nick Hoogvorst; Riemer H J A Slart; Remco J J Knol Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 5.952