4.2 Article

Initial experience with regadenoson stress positron emission tomography in patients with left bundle branch block: Low prevalence of septal defects and high accuracy for obstructive coronary artery disease

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 2, Pages 536-542

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12350-019-01681-4

Keywords

Left bundle branch block; positron emission tomography; coronary artery disease; regadenoson

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In patients with LBBB undergoing regadenoson PET stress imaging, artifactual septal perfusion defects are rare.
Background Assessing for coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) is difficult with noninvasive cardiac imaging. Few studies report the prevalence of LBBB associated septal-apical perfusion defects using regadenoson stress on Positron Electron Tomography (PET) imaging. Methods and Results We identified 101 consecutive patients with baseline LBBB, and without known CAD, who underwent rest-stress regadenoson PET. Investigators have the ability to prospectively identify studies, whose quality is limited by LBBB artifact. With the infusion of regadenoson, resting to peak stress heart rate rose from a median of 78 to 93 BPM. Despite this, LBBB perfusion artifacts were not identified in any studies. 10 individuals had both regadenoson SPECT and PET within 1 year. 3 of the 10 SPECT studies had LBBB artifacts, all of which were not seen on subsequent PET. 21 patients with PET had subsequent coronary angiography. Of these, 9 PETs were without significant inducible ischemia, and angiogram was without flow-limiting disease. 3 PETs identified inducible ischemia, but did not have flow-limiting disease on angiogram. 9 PETs identified inducible ischemia and had flow-limiting disease on angiogram. Conclusions In patients with LBBB undergoing regadenoson PET stress imaging, artifactual septal perfusion defects are rare.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available