4.4 Article

Screening Stress Myocardial Perfusion Imaging and Eligibility for Liver Transplantation

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 105, 期 7, 页码 1010-1013

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.11.023

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Screening for coronary artery disease is common practice in the evaluation of liver transplantation candidates. However, it is unclear whether coronary screening influences transplantation eligibility. We sought to determine the association between screening stress myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) results and the eligibility for liver transplantation. Within a retrospective cohort of liver transplantation candidates referred for screening stress MPI at a single institution from April 1998 to February 2004, we obtained the baseline characteristics, stress MPI results, transplantation eligibility, and transplantation denial criteria by chart review. Of 294 patients (39%) denied transplantation, the denial criteria were multifactorial for 91(31%) of the candidates. Compared to candidates with low-risk stress MPI results, the odds of being denied transplantation were the same for candidates with intermediate-risk MPI results (odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.82) or high-risk MPI results (odds ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 3.73). This lack of association persisted in our analysis with additional stratification of stress MPI results into negative, positive low-risk, positive intermediate-risk, and positive high-risk. In conclusion, the screening stress MPI results were not associated with liver transplantation eligibility. The large number of competing factors considered before transplantation listing and the low proportion of positive stress MPI results suggests that targeting screening to patients deemed otherwise acceptable for transplantation might increase the influence of stress MPI findings on transplantation eligibility. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2010;105:1010-1013)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据