Diagnostic Value of Adenosine-Induced Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction for Detecting Coronary Artery Restenosis in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation by Stress ECG-Gated Myocardial Perfusion SPECT: A Pilot Study

Background: Usefulness of diastolic dysfunction after adenosine stress for detecting coronary stenosis has not been defined. The diagnostic accuracy of a combination of myocardial perfusion and diastolic function, as defined by prolongation of time to peak-filling rate (TTPF)/R-R and myocardial perf...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Circulation Journal 2010, Vol.74(12), pp.2658-2665
Hauptverfasser: Nakano, Yoshimochi, Matsumoto, Naoya, Suzuki, Yasuyuki, Kato, Masahiko, Miki, Takaaki, Iida, Jun, Yoda, Shunichi, Sugiyama, Keiko, Sato, Yuichi, Kasama, Shu, Kushiro, Toshio, Nagao, Ken, Hirayama, Atsushi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background: Usefulness of diastolic dysfunction after adenosine stress for detecting coronary stenosis has not been defined. The diagnostic accuracy of a combination of myocardial perfusion and diastolic function, as defined by prolongation of time to peak-filling rate (TTPF)/R-R and myocardial perfusion alone for the detection of coronary restenosis, was evaluated. Methods and Results: We used rest 201Tl/ adenosine stress 99mTc-tetrofosmin myocardial perfusion singlephoton emission computed tomography (SPECT) in 70 patients. Patients were divided into the following 4 groups: 20 patients with normal SPECT without stent (Control group), 20 patients showing normal SPECT without coronary restenosis (Group 1), 16 patients showing significant coronary restenosis and myocardial ischemia (Group 2a) and 14 patients showing significant coronary restenosis without myocardial ischemia (Group 2b). The TTPF, which was calculated by quantitative gated SPECT (QGS)/R-R, was not different between after stress and at rest in Control group (0.18±0.02 vs 0.19±0.04, P=NS). The TTPF/R-R after stress was significantly lower than that at rest in Group 1 (0.17±0.02 vs 0.18±0.03, P
ISSN:1346-9843
1347-4820
DOI:10.1253/circj.CJ-10-0095