Literature DB >> 28279384

Can Functional Testing for Ischemia and Viability Guide Revascularization?

Lisa M Mielniczuk1, Gabor G Toth2, Joe X Xie3, Bernard De Bruyne4, Leslee J Shaw3, Rob S Beanlands5.   

Abstract

Cardiac imaging procedures are a cornerstone of the diagnosis and management of patients with cardiac disease. The optimal management of the patient with stable ischemic heart disease or ischemic heart failure often rests on the totality of symptom burden, patient risk, and disease severity, whether assessed anatomically or functionally. Recent trials have demonstrated the power of flow measurements to direct revascularization as well as the strengths and limitations of ischemia and viability/hibernation imaging as markers of risk to direct interventions. They have also highlighted the challenges in evaluating imaging or functional testing to direct therapies, because imaging does not directly affect outcome itself, rather it affects the management decisions that may result in a positive outcome. Ongoing studies with randomized designs, such as FAME 3 (Fractional Flow Reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation), ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), and AIMI-HF (Alternative Imaging Modalities in Ischemic Heart Failure) (IMAGE-HF [Imaging Modalities to Assist with Guiding Therapy in The Evaluation of Patients with Heart Failure]), will provide the highest level of evidence to support practice changes that may further clarify the role of cardiac imaging in the evaluation of these patients and result in improved patient outcomes.
Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PET; coronary revascularization; fractional flow reserve; heart failure; ischemic heart disease

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28279384     DOI: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.12.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging        ISSN: 1876-7591


  5 in total

1.  Myocardial Viability and Long-Term Outcomes in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Julio A Panza; Alicia M Ellis; Hussein R Al-Khalidi; Thomas A Holly; Daniel S Berman; Jae K Oh; Gerald M Pohost; George Sopko; Lukasz Chrzanowski; Daniel B Mark; Tomasz Kukulski; Liliana E Favaloro; Gerald Maurer; Pedro S Farsky; Ru-San Tan; Federico M Asch; Eric J Velazquez; Jean L Rouleau; Kerry L Lee; Robert O Bonow
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Editorial commentary: Is it still important to evaluate patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy for viable dysfunctional myocardium prior to myocardial revascularization?

Authors:  John M Canty
Journal:  Trends Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2017-08-19       Impact factor: 6.677

3.  Limited prognostic value of myocardial viability assessment in patients with coronary artery diseases and severe left ventricular dysfunction.

Authors:  Yihua Liu; Yefan Jiang; Xiaoxi Yang; Bingchuan Geng; Yi Liu; Xiaoke Shang; Jinping Liu; Xiaoli Lan; Nianguo Dong
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 2.895

4.  Diagnostic Performance of PET Versus SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging in Patients with Smaller Left Ventricles: A Substudy of the 18F-Flurpiridaz Phase III Clinical Trial.

Authors:  René R Sevag Packard; Joel L Lazewatsky; Cesare Orlandi; Jamshid Maddahi
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2020-11-27       Impact factor: 10.057

5.  Association of coronary revascularisation after physician-referred non-invasive diagnostic imaging tests with outcomes in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: a post hoc subgroup analysis.

Authors:  Takao Kato; Yukari Uemura; Masanao Naya; Naoya Matsumoto; Mitsuru Momose; Satoshi Hida; Takao Yamauchi; Takatomo Nakajima; Eriko Suzuki; Moriaki Inoko; Tohru Shiga; Nagara Tamaki
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-09-06       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.