These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Assessment of reversible myocardial dysfunction in chronic ischaemic heart disease: comparison of contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance and a combined positron emission tomography-single photon emission computed tomography imaging protocol.
    Author: Kühl HP, Lipke CS, Krombach GA, Katoh M, Battenberg TF, Nowak B, Heussen N, Buecker A, Schaefer WM.
    Journal: Eur Heart J; 2006 Apr; 27(7):846-53. PubMed ID: 16434414.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: The aim of the study was to compare, in patients with chronic ischaemic cardiomyopathy, contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance (ce-CMR) imaging and a combined (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and (99m)Tc-sestamibi single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) protocols for the prediction of functional recovery after revascularization, as assessed by cine CMR. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ejection fraction 32 +/- 10%) were investigated with ce-CMR and PET/SPECT. For the assessment of global and regional functions, cine CMR was performed at baseline and at 6 months follow-up. For ce-CMR, the segmental extent of hyperenhancement (SEH) was quantitated, and for PET/SPECT, different viability categories were defined according to a validated quantitative protocol. Functional improvement was related to the SEH by ce-CMR, as well as to the viability categories by PET/SPECT. Sensitivity and specificity for the prediction of functional recovery at follow-up was 97 and 68% for ce-CMR and 87 and 76% for PET/SPECT. The positive predictive value was identical for both techniques (73%). However, ce-CMR achieved a higher negative predictive value (93 vs. 77%, respectively), indicating that ce-CMR may be superior to PET/SPECT for the identification of segments unlikely to recover function after revascularization. Both methods had a similar yield in the prediction of global functional improvement. CONCLUSION: ce-CMR is comparable with a PET/SPECT imaging protocol for the prediction of regional and global functional improvement after revascularization. However, ce-CMR may be superior to nuclear imaging for the identification of segments that are unlikely to recover function at follow-up.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]