4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Noninvasive characterization of stunned, hibernating, remodeled and nonviable myocardium in ischemic cardiomyopathy

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 36, 期 6, 页码 1913-1919

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00959-1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES We evaluated a novel protocol of dual-isotope, gated single-photon emission computed tomographic (SPECT) imaging combined with low and high dose dobutamine as a single test for the characterization of various types of altered myocardial dysfunction. BACKGROUND Myocardial perfusion tomography and echocardiography have been used separately for the assessment of myocardial viability. However, it is possible to assess perfusion, function and contractile reserve using gated SPECT imaging. METHODS We studied 54 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy using rest and 4 h redistribution thallium-201 imaging and dobutamine technetium-99m sestamibi SPECT imaging. The sestamibi images were acquired 1 h after infusion of the maxima tolerated dose of dobutamine and again during infusion of dobutamine at a low dose to estimate contractile reserve. Myocardial segments were defined as hibernating, stunned, remodeled or scarred. RESULTS Severe regional dysfunction was present in 584 (54%) of 1,080 segments. Based on the combination of function and perfusion characteristics in these 584 segments, 24% (n = 140) were labeled as hibernating; 23% (n = 136) as stunned; 30% (n = 177) as remodeled; and 22% (n = 131) as scarred. Contractile reserve, represented by improvement in wall motion/thickening by low dose dobutamine, was observed in 83% of stunned, 59% of hibernating, 35% of remodeled and 13% of scarred myocardial segments (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION It is possible with this new imaging technique to characterize dysfunctional myocardium as stunned, hibernating remodeled and nonviable. These subtypes often coexist in the same patient. (C) 2000 by the American College of Cardiology.

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

4.7
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