W Lane Duvall1, Aditi Singhvi2, Nidhi Tripathi3, Milena J Henzlova4. 1. Division of Cardiology, Hartford Hospital, 80 Seymour Street, Hartford, CT, 06102, USA. lane.duvall@hhchealth.org. 2. Division of Cardiology, Hartford Hospital, 80 Seymour Street, Hartford, CT, 06102, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 4. Division of Cardiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal cardiovascular evaluation prior to liver transplantation remains controversial and includes stress echocardiography, stress MPI, cardiac CTA, and coronary angiography. This study summarizes our experience of the past decade using SPECT MPI in patients with end-stage liver disease, including patient characteristics, stress testing protocols, test results, the need for repeat testing, and downstream testing. METHODS: All patients who underwent a clinically indicated stress SPECT MPI study as part of their pre-liver transplant evaluation from 2004 to 2014 were reviewed from the Nuclear Cardiology database. Results of perfusion imaging, repeat testing, subsequent angiography, and need for revascularization were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 2500 patients were referred for SPECT MPI, of those 111 had known CAD and 271 underwent more than one MPI study. Compared to other patients undergoing stress MPI, pre-liver transplant patients were younger, had fewer cardiac risk factors and lower prevalence of prior cardiac history, and used pharmacologic stress more often. During the study decade, patient age increased, prevalence of hypertension increased and smoking decreased, prevalence of known CAD increased, and the number of abnormal studies decreased. Abnormal perfusion results were present in 7.8% of pre-liver transplant patients compared to 34.3% of all other patients. In a multivariate model, age and lower ejection fraction were associated with an abnormal MPI result. Of the 64 patients who underwent subsequent invasive or non-invasive coronary angiography after an abnormal MPI, obstructive CAD was diagnosed in 25 patients (1.0%), non-obstructive CAD was diagnosed in 23 patients (0.9%), and normal coronaries found in 16 patients (0.6%); a total of 18 (0.7%) of these underwent coronary revascularization. The average time to repeat testing was 27.2 ± 17.9 months. In a multivariate model, younger age and exercise stress were associated with repeat testing. In only 17 patients out of 271 with a normal initial perfusion, the repeat study became abnormal. The use of stress-first imaging was successful in 80% of patients with a reduction in Tc-99m dose from 39.1 to 18.3 mCi. CONCLUSION: Abnormal SPECT MPI results in candidates for liver transplantation are infrequent compared to non-liver transplant patients and the incidence of obstructive CAD on subsequent angiography even less. Repeat testing in those on the transplant waiting list after initial normal test results appears to be of limited value. Stress-first protocols may be considered for the majority of these patients to reduce testing time and radiation exposure.
BACKGROUND: The optimal cardiovascular evaluation prior to liver transplantation remains controversial and includes stress echocardiography, stress MPI, cardiac CTA, and coronary angiography. This study summarizes our experience of the past decade using SPECT MPI in patients with end-stage liver disease, including patient characteristics, stress testing protocols, test results, the need for repeat testing, and downstream testing. METHODS: All patients who underwent a clinically indicated stress SPECT MPI study as part of their pre-liver transplant evaluation from 2004 to 2014 were reviewed from the Nuclear Cardiology database. Results of perfusion imaging, repeat testing, subsequent angiography, and need for revascularization were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 2500 patients were referred for SPECT MPI, of those 111 had known CAD and 271 underwent more than one MPI study. Compared to other patients undergoing stress MPI, pre-liver transplant patients were younger, had fewer cardiac risk factors and lower prevalence of prior cardiac history, and used pharmacologic stress more often. During the study decade, patient age increased, prevalence of hypertension increased and smoking decreased, prevalence of known CAD increased, and the number of abnormal studies decreased. Abnormal perfusion results were present in 7.8% of pre-liver transplant patients compared to 34.3% of all other patients. In a multivariate model, age and lower ejection fraction were associated with an abnormal MPI result. Of the 64 patients who underwent subsequent invasive or non-invasive coronary angiography after an abnormal MPI, obstructive CAD was diagnosed in 25 patients (1.0%), non-obstructive CAD was diagnosed in 23 patients (0.9%), and normal coronaries found in 16 patients (0.6%); a total of 18 (0.7%) of these underwent coronary revascularization. The average time to repeat testing was 27.2 ± 17.9 months. In a multivariate model, younger age and exercise stress were associated with repeat testing. In only 17 patients out of 271 with a normal initial perfusion, the repeat study became abnormal. The use of stress-first imaging was successful in 80% of patients with a reduction in Tc-99m dose from 39.1 to 18.3 mCi. CONCLUSION: Abnormal SPECT MPI results in candidates for liver transplantation are infrequent compared to non-liver transplant patients and the incidence of obstructive CAD on subsequent angiography even less. Repeat testing in those on the transplant waiting list after initial normal test results appears to be of limited value. Stress-first protocols may be considered for the majority of these patients to reduce testing time and radiation exposure.
Authors: Jihyun An; Ju Hyun Shim; Seon-Ok Kim; Danbi Lee; Kang Mo Kim; Young-Suk Lim; Han Chu Lee; Young-Hwa Chung; Yung Sang Lee Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-08-05 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Milena J Henzlova; W Lane Duvall; Andrew J Einstein; Mark I Travin; Hein J Verberne Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Suchit Bhutani; Jonathan Tobis; Rubine Gevorgyan; Arjun Sinha; William Suh; Henry M Honda; Gabriel Vorobiof; René R S Packard; Randolph Steadman; Christopher Wray; Ronald Busuttil; Chi-hong Tseng Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Robert S Gaston; Gabriel M Danovitch; Patricia L Adams; James J Wynn; Robert M Merion; Mark H Deierhoi; Robert A Metzger; J Michael Cecka; William E Harmon; Alan B Leichtman; Aaron Spital; Emily Blumberg; Charles A Herzog; Robert A Wolfe; Dolly B Tyan; John Roberts; Richard Rohrer; Friedrich K Port; Francis L Delmonico Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Andres T Blei; Sameer Mazhar; Charles J Davidson; Steven L Flamm; Michael Abecassis; Mihai Gheorghiade Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2007 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Maria Bonou; Sophie Mavrogeni; Chris J Kapelios; Marina Skouloudi; Constantina Aggeli; Evangelos Cholongitas; George Papatheodoridis; John Barbetseas Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2021-01-05
Authors: Adrián I Löffler; Jorge A Gonzalez; Shriram K Sundararaman; Roshin C Mathew; Patrick T Norton; Klaus D Hagspiel; Christopher M Kramer; Michael Ragosta; Campbell Rogers; Neeral L Shah; Michael Salerno Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 5.799