Kinjan Parikh1, Alana Choy-Shan1,2, Munir Ghesani3, Robert Donnino4,5,6. 1. Leon H. Charney Division of Cardiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, 10016, USA. 2. Division of Cardiology, VA Harbor Medical Center, Manhattan Campus, 423 E 23rd Street, 12 West, Cardiology, New York, NY, 10010, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, 10029, USA. 4. Leon H. Charney Division of Cardiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, 10016, USA. robert.donnino@nyulangone.org. 5. Division of Cardiology, VA Harbor Medical Center, Manhattan Campus, 423 E 23rd Street, 12 West, Cardiology, New York, NY, 10010, USA. robert.donnino@nyulangone.org. 6. Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, 10016, USA. robert.donnino@nyulangone.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Myocardial viability is an important pathophysiologic concept which may have significant clinical impact in patients with left ventricular dysfunction due to ischemic heart disease. Understanding the imaging modalities used to assess viability, and the clinical implication of their findings, is critical for clinical decision-making in this population. RECENT FINDINGS: The ability of dobutamine echocardiography, single-photon emission computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging to predict functional recovery following revascularization is well-established. Despite different advantages and disadvantages for each imaging modality, each modality has demonstrated reasonable performance characteristics in identifying viable myocardium. Recent data, however, has called into question whether this functional recovery leads to improved clinical outcomes. Although the assessment of viability can be used to aid in clinical decision-making prior to revascularization, its broad application to all patients is limited by a lack of data confirming improvement in clinical outcomes. Thus, viability assessments may be best applied to select patients (such as those with increased surgical risk) and integrated with clinical, laboratory, and imaging data to guide clinical care. Future research efforts should be aimed at establishing the impact of viability on clinical outcomes.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Myocardial viability is an important pathophysiologic concept which may have significant clinical impact in patients with left ventricular dysfunction due to ischemic heart disease. Understanding the imaging modalities used to assess viability, and the clinical implication of their findings, is critical for clinical decision-making in this population. RECENT FINDINGS: The ability of dobutamine echocardiography, single-photon emission computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging to predict functional recovery following revascularization is well-established. Despite different advantages and disadvantages for each imaging modality, each modality has demonstrated reasonable performance characteristics in identifying viable myocardium. Recent data, however, has called into question whether this functional recovery leads to improved clinical outcomes. Although the assessment of viability can be used to aid in clinical decision-making prior to revascularization, its broad application to all patients is limited by a lack of data confirming improvement in clinical outcomes. Thus, viability assessments may be best applied to select patients (such as those with increased surgical risk) and integrated with clinical, laboratory, and imaging data to guide clinical care. Future research efforts should be aimed at establishing the impact of viability on clinical outcomes.
Authors: J H Cornel; J J Bax; A Elhendy; A P Maat; G J Kimman; M L Geleijnse; R Rambaldi; E Boersma; P M Fioretti Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1998-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: J Ausma; G Schaart; F Thoné; B Shivalkar; W Flameng; C Depré; J L Vanoverschelde; F Ramaekers; M Borgers Journal: Cardiovasc Pathol Date: 1995 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.185
Authors: Patricia A Pellikka; Adelaide Arruda-Olson; Farooq A Chaudhry; Ming Hui Chen; Jane E Marshall; Thomas R Porter; Stephen G Sawada Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: J J Bax; D Poldermans; A Elhendy; J H Cornel; E Boersma; R Rambaldi; J R Roelandt; P M Fioretti Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1999-07 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Dipan J Shah; Han W Kim; Olga James; Michele Parker; Edwin Wu; Robert O Bonow; Robert M Judd; Raymond J Kim Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 56.272