4.1 Article

Myocardial stunning demonstrated with rest and post-stress measurements of left ventricular function using dual-isotope gated myocardial perfusion SPECT

期刊

NUCLEAR MEDICINE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 25, 期 7, 页码 657-663

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.mnm.0000126510.81093.02

关键词

gated myocardial perfusion SPECT; dual-isotope SPECT; left ventricular function; myocardial stunning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives We have evaluated left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at rest (REF) and after stress (SEF) with dual-isotope gated myocardial perfusion SPECT (GMPS) with Tl-201 injected at rest and Tc-99m sestamibi (Tc-99m-MIBI) injected at peak stress, to assess the occurrence of post-stress stunning. Methods Two hundred and thirty-six consecutive patients had GMPS at rest and post-stress. The summed stress and rest scores and the summed difference score (SDS) were calculated using a 17-segment model analysis of GMPS. An SDS >3 indicated significant ischaemia. The REF and SEF were automatically generated and the DEF (SEF-REF) was calculated. Results Significant stress induced ischaemia was observed in 103 patients (44%). REF was 54.72% +/- 15.75% and SEF was 55.69% +/- 16.65% (P<0.0015). DEF was -2.25 +/- 5.36 and 3.42 +/- 5.25 in patients with and without ischaemia, respectively (P<0.001). Post-stress stunning (>5% decrease in LVEF) was present in 68 patients (29%) and in 58/103 (56%) patients with ischaemia, after treadmill exercise or dipyridamole infusion and was more common in patients with severe ischaemia. The single significant predictor of DEF in univariate analysis and of stunning using logistic binary regression was stress induced ischaemia (P<0.0001). Conclusion LVEF increases post-stress in patients with no ischaemia and may decrease in 56% of patients with ischaemia, possibly due to stunning. The best predictor of post-stress stunning is stress induced ischaemia and its occurrence is related to the degree of ischaemia. (C) 2004 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

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

4.1
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