4.4 Article

Prognostic value of myocardial viability recognized by low-dose dobutamine echocardiography in chronic ischemic left ventricular dysfunction

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 92, 期 11, 页码 1263-1266

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2003.08.004

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assesses the prognostic value of myocardial viability recognized as a contractile response to inotropic stimulation in patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction in a large-scale prospective, multicenter, observational study. Four hundred twenty-five patients (mean age 61 +/- 10 years) with angiographically proven coronary artery disease, previous (>3 months) myocardial infarction, and severe LV dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%; mean 28 +/- 6%) were enrolled in the study. Each patient underwent low-dose dobutamine echocardiography (up to 10 mug/kg/min). Myocardial viability was identified as a rest-stress variation (A) in the wall motion score index (WMSI), in which each segment was scored from 1 = normal to 4 = dyskinetic in a 16-segment model of the left ventricle. Myocardial viability was identified as an improvement of greater than or equal to0.40 in WMSI. All patients were followed for a median of 3.1 years. One hundred eighty-eight were revascularized either by coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 118) or coronary angioplasty (n = 70). The only end point analyzed was cardiac death. In the revascularized group, cardiac death occurred in 4 of the 52 patients with and in 37 of the 136 patients without myocardial viability (7.7% vs 27.2%, p <0.003). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates showed a better outcome for those patients with compared to patients without myocardial viability who underwent coronary revascularization (90.1% vs 62%, p <0.0078). Thus, in severe LV ischemic dysfunction, myocardial viability by low-dose dobutamine echocardiography is associated with improved survival in revascularized patients. (C) 2003 by Excerpta Medica, Inc.

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