Elsemiek M Engbers1,2, Jorik R Timmer3, Mohamed Mouden3,4, Siert Knollema4, Pieter L Jager4, Jan Paul Ottervanger3. 1. Department of Cardiology, Isala, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands. e.engbers@isala.nl. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands. e.engbers@isala.nl. 3. Department of Cardiology, Isala, Dokter van Heesweg 2, 8025 AB, Zwolle, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Isala, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of left bundle branch block (LBBB) on sequential single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/ CT imaging starting with stress-first SPECT. METHODS: Consecutive symptomatic low- to intermediate-risk patients without a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) referred for SPECT/CT were included from an observational registry. If stress SPECT was abnormal, additional rest SPECT and, if feasible, coronary CT angiography (CCTA) were acquired. RESULTS: Of the 5,018 patients, 218 (4.3 %) demonstrated LBBB. Patients with LBBB were slightly older than patients without LBBB (65±12 vs. 61±11 years, p<0.001). Stress SPECT was more frequently abnormal in patients with LBBB (82 % vs. 46 %, p<0.001). After reviewing stress and rest images, SPECT was normal in 43 % of the patients with LBBB, compared to 77 % of the patients without LBBB (p<0.001). Sixty-four of the 124 patients with LBBB and abnormal stress-rest SPECT underwent CCTA (52 %), which could exclude obstructive CAD in 46 of the patients (72 %). CONCLUSIONS: Sequential SPECT/CT imaging starting with stress SPECT is not the optimal imaging protocol in patients with LBBB, as the majority of these patients have potentially false-positive stress SPECT. First-line testing using CCTA may be more appropriate in low- to intermediate-risk patients with LBBB. KEY POINTS: • Stress-first SPECT imaging is attractive if many patients demonstrate normal stress perfusion. • The majority of left bundle branch block patients have abnormal stress-first SPECT. • Coronary CT excluded obstructive CAD in many LBBB patients with abnormal SPECT. • Stress-first SPECT imaging is not the optimal imaging protocol in LBBB patients. • In LBBB patients imaging with initial coronary CT may be more appropriate.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of left bundle branch block (LBBB) on sequential single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/ CT imaging starting with stress-first SPECT. METHODS: Consecutive symptomatic low- to intermediate-risk patients without a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) referred for SPECT/CT were included from an observational registry. If stress SPECT was abnormal, additional rest SPECT and, if feasible, coronary CT angiography (CCTA) were acquired. RESULTS: Of the 5,018 patients, 218 (4.3 %) demonstrated LBBB. Patients with LBBB were slightly older than patients without LBBB (65±12 vs. 61±11 years, p<0.001). Stress SPECT was more frequently abnormal in patients with LBBB (82 % vs. 46 %, p<0.001). After reviewing stress and rest images, SPECT was normal in 43 % of the patients with LBBB, compared to 77 % of the patients without LBBB (p<0.001). Sixty-four of the 124 patients with LBBB and abnormal stress-rest SPECT underwent CCTA (52 %), which could exclude obstructive CAD in 46 of the patients (72 %). CONCLUSIONS: Sequential SPECT/CT imaging starting with stress SPECT is not the optimal imaging protocol in patients with LBBB, as the majority of these patients have potentially false-positive stress SPECT. First-line testing using CCTA may be more appropriate in low- to intermediate-risk patients with LBBB. KEY POINTS: • Stress-first SPECT imaging is attractive if many patients demonstrate normal stress perfusion. • The majority of left bundle branch blockpatients have abnormal stress-first SPECT. • Coronary CT excluded obstructive CAD in many LBBB patients with abnormal SPECT. • Stress-first SPECT imaging is not the optimal imaging protocol in LBBB patients. • In LBBB patients imaging with initial coronary CT may be more appropriate.
Authors: W G Austen; J E Edwards; R L Frye; G G Gensini; V L Gott; L S Griffith; D C McGoon; M L Murphy; B B Roe Journal: Circulation Date: 1975-04 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jacob M van Werkhoven; Joanne D Schuijf; Oliver Gaemperli; J Wouter Jukema; Eric Boersma; William Wijns; Paul Stolzmann; Hatem Alkadhi; Ines Valenta; Marcel P M Stokkel; Lucia J Kroft; Albert de Roos; Gabija Pundziute; Arthur Scholte; Ernst E van der Wall; Philipp A Kaufmann; Jeroen J Bax Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D S Berman; R Hachamovitch; H Kiat; I Cohen; J A Cabico; F P Wang; J D Friedman; G Germano; K Van Train; G A Diamond Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1995-09 Impact factor: 24.094