Santiago Aguadé-Bruix1, Guillermo Romero-Farina2, Jaume Candell-Riera2, María N Pizzi2, David García-Dorado2. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Paseo Vall d'Hebron 119-129, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. saguade@vhebron.net. 2. Cardiology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to establish different degrees of mechanical dyssynchrony according to validated cut-off (CO) values of myocardial perfusion gated SPECT phase analysis parameters (SD, standard deviation; B, bandwidth; S, skewness; K, kurtosis). METHODS: Using Emory Cardiac Toolbox™, we prospectively analyzed 408 patients (mean age 64.1 years, 26.7% female), divided into a control group of 150 normal subjects and a validation group of 258 patients (left bundle branch block: 17.8%, right bundle branch block: 8.9%. atrial fibrillation: 16.3%, coronary revascularization: 30%, dilated cardiomyopathy: 7.4%. valvulopathies: 2.7%, ischemic test: 45.3%) with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiac diseases, by means of phase analysis. RESULTS: Agreement of CO values (SD > 18.4°; B > 51°; S ≤ 3.2; K ≤ 9.3) used to discriminate between normal subjects and patients was strong (c-statistic 0.9; 95% CI 0.98-0.99). Four degrees of dyssynchrony were found according to the number of abnormal phase parameters. All patients with mechanical and electrical criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CCRT) (n: 82) had Grade 2 to 4 (two to four abnormal phase parameters). Agreement of CO values (SD > 40.2°; B > 132°; S ≤ 2.3; K ≤ 4.6) used to discriminate between patients with and without CCRT was strong (c-statistic 0.8; 95% CI 0.79-0.87) but 12% of patients with CCRT did not have any of these abnormal phase parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The discriminatory capacity of gated SPECT phase analysis parameters between normal subjects and patients, and between patients with and without CCRT, is very good, making it possible to define different degrees of mechanical dyssynchrony.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to establish different degrees of mechanical dyssynchrony according to validated cut-off (CO) values of myocardial perfusion gated SPECT phase analysis parameters (SD, standard deviation; B, bandwidth; S, skewness; K, kurtosis). METHODS: Using Emory Cardiac Toolbox™, we prospectively analyzed 408 patients (mean age 64.1 years, 26.7% female), divided into a control group of 150 normal subjects and a validation group of 258 patients (left bundle branch block: 17.8%, right bundle branch block: 8.9%. atrial fibrillation: 16.3%, coronary revascularization: 30%, dilated cardiomyopathy: 7.4%. valvulopathies: 2.7%, ischemic test: 45.3%) with ischemic and non-ischemiccardiac diseases, by means of phase analysis. RESULTS: Agreement of CO values (SD > 18.4°; B > 51°; S ≤ 3.2; K ≤ 9.3) used to discriminate between normal subjects and patients was strong (c-statistic 0.9; 95% CI 0.98-0.99). Four degrees of dyssynchrony were found according to the number of abnormal phase parameters. All patients with mechanical and electrical criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CCRT) (n: 82) had Grade 2 to 4 (two to four abnormal phase parameters). Agreement of CO values (SD > 40.2°; B > 132°; S ≤ 2.3; K ≤ 4.6) used to discriminate between patients with and without CCRT was strong (c-statistic 0.8; 95% CI 0.79-0.87) but 12% of patients with CCRT did not have any of these abnormal phase parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The discriminatory capacity of gated SPECT phase analysis parameters between normal subjects and patients, and between patients with and without CCRT, is very good, making it possible to define different degrees of mechanical dyssynchrony.
Authors: Ji Chen; Maureen M Henneman; Mark A Trimble; Jeroen J Bax; Salvador Borges-Neto; Ami E Iskandrian; Kenneth J Nichols; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Ji Chen; Andreas P Kalogeropoulos; Liudmila Verdes; Javed Butler; Ernest V Garcia Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2011-01-13 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Aju P Pazhenkottil; Ronny R Buechel; Lars Husmann; René N Nkoulou; Mathias Wolfrum; Jelena-Rima Ghadri; Janine Kummer; Bernhard A Herzog; Philipp A Kaufmann Journal: Heart Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Zainab Samad; Allen E Atchley; Mark A Trimble; Jie-Lena Sun; Linda K Shaw; Robert Pagnanelli; Ji Chen; Ernest V Garcia; Ami E Iskandrian; Eric J Velazquez; Salvador Borges-Neto Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Mark A Trimble; Salvador Borges-Neto; Emily F Honeycutt; Linda K Shaw; Robert Pagnanelli; Ji Chen; Ami E Iskandrian; Ernest V Garcia; Eric J Velazquez Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2008 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Serge D Van Kriekinge; Hidetaka Nishina; Muneo Ohba; Daniel S Berman; Guido Germano Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 10.057
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