Stephanie El-Hajj1, Wael A AlJaroudi2, Ayman Farag1, Steven Bleich1, Padma Manaoragada1, Ami E Iskandrian1, Fadi G Hage3,4. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Lyons Harrison Research Building 314, 1900 University BLVD, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. 3. Division of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Lyons Harrison Research Building 314, 1900 University BLVD, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA. fadihage@uab.edu. 4. Section of Cardiology, Birmingham Veterans Administration Medical Center, Birmingham, AL, USA. fadihage@uab.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is well established. There is a paucity of data on the prognostic value of changes in perfusion defect size (PDS) on serial MPIs. METHODS: From the MPI database at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, consecutive patients who underwent two regadenoson stress MPIs between July 2008 and March 2013 were identified. The MPIs were analyzed side-by-side using an automated software program for presence and change in PDS. Improvement in PDS was defined as a reduction ≥5% of left ventricle. A drop in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was defined as a decrease ≥5%. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and coronary revascularization (CR). RESULTS: There were 698 patients (61 ± 11 years, 53% male, 48% diabetes, 25% prior MI, 49% prior CR) who underwent two regadenoson MPIs within 16 ± 9 months for clinical indications. The primary outcome occurred in 167 (24%) patients (8% death, 9% MI, 15% CR) during 24 ± 16 months of follow-up after the second MPI. The MPIs were normal in both studies in 399 (57%, Group 1), showed improvement in 94 (14%, Group 2, PDS 15% ± 16% vs 28% ± 18%, P < .001) and no change or worsening in 205 patients (29%, Group 3, 28% ± 17% vs 20% ± 17%, P < .001). The best outcomes were seen in Group 1 and the worst in Group 3 (log-rank P < .001). Similar trends were seen for the components of the primary outcome (P = .04 for death, P < .001 for MI, P < .001 for CR). In a Cox-regression model that adjusted for baseline factors including PDS and LVEF on initial MPI, the hazard ratios for primary outcome were 2.0 (P = .02) and 3.9 (P < .001) for Groups 2 and 3 compared to Group 1, respectively. In addition, an LVEF drop ≥5% was independently associated with the primary outcome (HR 1.5, P = .01). CONCLUSION: Changes in PDS and LVEF on serial MPIs provide incremental prognostic information to initial and follow-up MPI findings. Lack of improvement or an increase in PDS and a drop in LVEF identify high-risk patients.
BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) is well established. There is a paucity of data on the prognostic value of changes in perfusion defect size (PDS) on serial MPIs. METHODS: From the MPI database at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, consecutive patients who underwent two regadenoson stress MPIs between July 2008 and March 2013 were identified. The MPIs were analyzed side-by-side using an automated software program for presence and change in PDS. Improvement in PDS was defined as a reduction ≥5% of left ventricle. A drop in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was defined as a decrease ≥5%. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and coronary revascularization (CR). RESULTS: There were 698 patients (61 ± 11 years, 53% male, 48% diabetes, 25% prior MI, 49% prior CR) who underwent two regadenoson MPIs within 16 ± 9 months for clinical indications. The primary outcome occurred in 167 (24%) patients (8% death, 9% MI, 15% CR) during 24 ± 16 months of follow-up after the second MPI. The MPIs were normal in both studies in 399 (57%, Group 1), showed improvement in 94 (14%, Group 2, PDS 15% ± 16% vs 28% ± 18%, P < .001) and no change or worsening in 205 patients (29%, Group 3, 28% ± 17% vs 20% ± 17%, P < .001). The best outcomes were seen in Group 1 and the worst in Group 3 (log-rank P < .001). Similar trends were seen for the components of the primary outcome (P = .04 for death, P < .001 for MI, P < .001 for CR). In a Cox-regression model that adjusted for baseline factors including PDS and LVEF on initial MPI, the hazard ratios for primary outcome were 2.0 (P = .02) and 3.9 (P < .001) for Groups 2 and 3 compared to Group 1, respectively. In addition, an LVEF drop ≥5% was independently associated with the primary outcome (HR 1.5, P = .01). CONCLUSION: Changes in PDS and LVEF on serial MPIs provide incremental prognostic information to initial and follow-up MPI findings. Lack of improvement or an increase in PDS and a drop in LVEF identify high-risk patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Myocardial perfusion imaging; outcomes; regadenoson; serial
Authors: Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Allan S Jaffe; Maarten L Simoons; Bernard R Chaitman; Harvey D White; Hugo A Katus; Bertil Lindahl; David A Morrow; Peter M Clemmensen; Per Johanson; Hanoch Hod; Richard Underwood; Jeroen J Bax; Robert O Bonow; Fausto Pinto; Raymond J Gibbons; Keith A Fox; Dan Atar; L Kristin Newby; Marcello Galvani; Christian W Hamm; Barry F Uretsky; Ph Gabriel Steg; William Wijns; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Phillippe Menasché; Jan Ravkilde; E Magnus Ohman; Elliott M Antman; Lars C Wallentin; Paul W Armstrong; Maarten L Simoons; James L Januzzi; Markku S Nieminen; Mihai Gheorghiade; Gerasimos Filippatos; Russell V Luepker; Stephen P Fortmann; Wayne D Rosamond; Dan Levy; David Wood; Sidney C Smith; Dayi Hu; José-Luis Lopez-Sendon; Rose Marie Robertson; Douglas Weaver; Michal Tendera; Alfred A Bove; Alexander N Parkhomenko; Elena J Vasilieva; Shanti Mendis Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Vivek Rajagopal; Hitinder S Gurm; Richard C Brunken; Claire E Pothier; Deepak L Bhatt; Michael S Lauer Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: D S Berman; X Kang; E F Schisterman; J Gerlach; P B Kavanagh; J S Areeda; T Sharir; S W Hayes; L J Shaw; H C Lewin; J D Friedman; R Miranda; G Germano Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2001 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Abdou Elhendy; Arend F l Schinkel; Ron T van Domburg; Jeroen J Bax; Roelf Valkema; Don Poldermans Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2003 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: H A Dakik; N S Kleiman; J A Farmer; Z X He; J A Wendt; C M Pratt; M S Verani; J J Mahmarian Journal: Circulation Date: 1998-11-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Fahad M Iqbal; Wael Al Jaroudi; Kumar Sanam; Aaron Sweeney; Jaekyeong Heo; Ami E Iskandrian; Fadi G Hage Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-10-27 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Daniel S Berman; David J Maron; G B John Mancini; Sean W Hayes; Pamela M Hartigan; William S Weintraub; Robert A O'Rourke; Marcin Dada; John A Spertus; Bernard R Chaitman; John Friedman; Piotr Slomka; Gary V Heller; Guido Germano; Gilbert Gosselin; Peter Berger; William J Kostuk; Ronald G Schwartz; Merill Knudtson; Emir Veledar; Eric R Bates; Benjamin McCallister; Koon K Teo; William E Boden Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-02-11 Impact factor: 29.690