This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Fleming, R. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fleming, R. M. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH Medline Plus Health Information Nuclear Scans Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A Tête-à-Tête Comparison of Ejection Fraction and Regional Wall Motion Abnormalities as Measured by Echocardiography and Gated Sestamibi SPECT

Fleming Heart and Health Institute and The Camelot Foundation, Omaha, NE.

Determination of ejection fraction and regional wall motion abnormalities (RWMAs) consistent with stunned, hibernating, or infarcted myocardium can be noninvasively determined by both echocardiography and nuclear cardiac imaging. Prior comparisons between the 2 methods have been limited to Tc 99m pertechnetate or to stress images with attention to RWMAs only. To determine the relationship between results seen with echocardiography and gated single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) using sestamibi, 26 individuals with varying degrees of coronary artery disease were prospectively studied with both techniques. Five indi viduals had single-vessel disease, 10 had 2-vessel disease, and 11 had triple-vessel disease. Each individual underwent 2-D, M-mode, and Doppler echocardiography (echo) as well as gated SPECT imaging using rest and stress (high-dose dipyridamole/HDD) sestamibi imaging. The results were statistically different when ejection fractions (EFs) and RWMAs were compared. There were no statistical differences between EFs determined at rest when either echo or nuclear imaging was used. However, patients with EFs <70-80% were overestimated by echo, with echo underestimating EFs > 70-80% (p = 0.001). There was a high correlation (r = 0.76) between resting echocardiographic EFs and SPECT resting gated sestamibi images in patients with single-vessel disease, and a moderate correlation (r=0.68 and r=0.68) in patients with 2- and 3-vessel disease, respectively. Differences in the detection of RWMAs were statistically different for patients with 2-vessel disease (p = 0.04) and approached significance in 3-vessel disease (p = 0.56) with more RWMA being detected by resting gated SPECT imaging than by echo. Greater differences in RWMAs were seen in patients with 1-, 2-, and 3-vessel disease when resting echo was compared with HDD gated SPECT sestamibi imaging. These differ ences were statistically greater in 2- (p=0.0027) and 3- (p=0.0003) vessel disease. Differences between stress and resting images are expected in individuals with severe coronary artery disease. Comparison of noninvasive assessment of EFs and RWMAs by gated SPECT sestamibi and echocardiography showed different results when looking at EFs, with echo reporting greater EFs for people with EFs < 70-80%. Patients with two and 3-vessel disease were statis tically more likely to have RWMAs detected by gated SPECT sestamibi than by echo.

Angiology, Vol. 53, No. 3, 313-321 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/000331970205300309


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?