Value of scar imaging and inotropic reserve combination for the prediction of segmental and global left ventricular functional recovery after revascularisation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study sought to prospectively and directly compare three cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) viability parameters: inotropic reserve (IR) during low-dose dobutamine (LDD) administration, late gadolinium enhancement transmura...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Celutkiene Jelena, Skorniakov Viktor, Palionis Darius, Valeviciene Nomeda, Glaveckaite Sigita, Tamosiunas Algirdas, Uzdavinys Giedrius, Laucevicius Aleksandras
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2011-07-01
Series:Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
Online Access:http://www.jcmr-online.com/content/13/1/35
id doaj-a042b4c5ba3849abb6ae719e40f36261
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a042b4c5ba3849abb6ae719e40f362612020-11-24T21:15:34ZengBMCJournal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance1097-66471532-429X2011-07-011313510.1186/1532-429X-13-35Value of scar imaging and inotropic reserve combination for the prediction of segmental and global left ventricular functional recovery after revascularisationCelutkiene JelenaSkorniakov ViktorPalionis DariusValeviciene NomedaGlaveckaite SigitaTamosiunas AlgirdasUzdavinys GiedriusLaucevicius Aleksandras<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study sought to prospectively and directly compare three cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) viability parameters: inotropic reserve (IR) during low-dose dobutamine (LDD) administration, late gadolinium enhancement transmurality (LGE) and thickness of the non-contrast-enhanced myocardial rim surrounding the scar (RIM). These parameters were examined to evaluate their value as predictors of segmental left ventricular (LV) functional recovery in patients with LV systolic dysfunction undergoing surgical or percutaneous revascularisation. The second goal of the study was to determine the optimal LDD-CMR- and LGE-CMR-based predictor of significant (≥ 5%) LVEF improvement 6 months after revascularisation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In 46 patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) (63 ± 10 years of age, LVEF 35 ± 8%), wall motion and the above mentioned CMR parameters were evaluated before revascularisation. Wall motion and LGE were repeatedly assessed 6 months after revascularisation. Logistic regression analysis models were created using 333 dysfunctional segments at rest.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>An LGE threshold value of 50% (LGE50) and a RIM threshold value of 4 mm (RIM4) produced the best sensitivities and specificities for predicting segmental recovery. IR was superior to LGE50 for predicting segmental recovery. When the areas under the ROC curves is compared, the combined viability prediction model (LGE50 + IR) was significantly superior to IR alone in all analysed sets of segments, except the segments with an LGE from 26% to 75% (p = 0.08). The RIM4 model was not superior to the LGE50 model. A myocardial segment was considered viable if it had no LGE or had any LGE and produced IR during LDD stimulation. ROC analysis demonstrated that ≥ 50% of viable segments from all dysfunctional and revascularised segments in a patient predict significant improvement in LVEF with a 69% sensitivity and 70% specificity (AUC 0.7, p = 0.05). The cut-off of ≥ 3 viable segments was a less useful predictor of significant global LV recovery.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>LDD-CMR is superior to LGE-CMR as a predictor of segmental recovery. The advantage is greatest in the segments with an LGE from 26% to 75%. The RIM cut-off value of 4 mm had no superiority over the LGE cut-off value of 50% in predicting the segmental recovery. Patients with ≥ 50% of viable segments from all dysfunctional and revascularised had a tendency to improve LVEF by ≥ 5% after revascularisation.</p> http://www.jcmr-online.com/content/13/1/35
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Celutkiene Jelena
Skorniakov Viktor
Palionis Darius
Valeviciene Nomeda
Glaveckaite Sigita
Tamosiunas Algirdas
Uzdavinys Giedrius
Laucevicius Aleksandras
spellingShingle Celutkiene Jelena
Skorniakov Viktor
Palionis Darius
Valeviciene Nomeda
Glaveckaite Sigita
Tamosiunas Algirdas
Uzdavinys Giedrius
Laucevicius Aleksandras
Value of scar imaging and inotropic reserve combination for the prediction of segmental and global left ventricular functional recovery after revascularisation
Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
author_facet Celutkiene Jelena
Skorniakov Viktor
Palionis Darius
Valeviciene Nomeda
Glaveckaite Sigita
Tamosiunas Algirdas
Uzdavinys Giedrius
Laucevicius Aleksandras
author_sort Celutkiene Jelena
title Value of scar imaging and inotropic reserve combination for the prediction of segmental and global left ventricular functional recovery after revascularisation
title_short Value of scar imaging and inotropic reserve combination for the prediction of segmental and global left ventricular functional recovery after revascularisation
title_full Value of scar imaging and inotropic reserve combination for the prediction of segmental and global left ventricular functional recovery after revascularisation
title_fullStr Value of scar imaging and inotropic reserve combination for the prediction of segmental and global left ventricular functional recovery after revascularisation
title_full_unstemmed Value of scar imaging and inotropic reserve combination for the prediction of segmental and global left ventricular functional recovery after revascularisation
title_sort value of scar imaging and inotropic reserve combination for the prediction of segmental and global left ventricular functional recovery after revascularisation
publisher BMC
series Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
issn 1097-6647
1532-429X
publishDate 2011-07-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study sought to prospectively and directly compare three cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) viability parameters: inotropic reserve (IR) during low-dose dobutamine (LDD) administration, late gadolinium enhancement transmurality (LGE) and thickness of the non-contrast-enhanced myocardial rim surrounding the scar (RIM). These parameters were examined to evaluate their value as predictors of segmental left ventricular (LV) functional recovery in patients with LV systolic dysfunction undergoing surgical or percutaneous revascularisation. The second goal of the study was to determine the optimal LDD-CMR- and LGE-CMR-based predictor of significant (≥ 5%) LVEF improvement 6 months after revascularisation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In 46 patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) (63 ± 10 years of age, LVEF 35 ± 8%), wall motion and the above mentioned CMR parameters were evaluated before revascularisation. Wall motion and LGE were repeatedly assessed 6 months after revascularisation. Logistic regression analysis models were created using 333 dysfunctional segments at rest.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>An LGE threshold value of 50% (LGE50) and a RIM threshold value of 4 mm (RIM4) produced the best sensitivities and specificities for predicting segmental recovery. IR was superior to LGE50 for predicting segmental recovery. When the areas under the ROC curves is compared, the combined viability prediction model (LGE50 + IR) was significantly superior to IR alone in all analysed sets of segments, except the segments with an LGE from 26% to 75% (p = 0.08). The RIM4 model was not superior to the LGE50 model. A myocardial segment was considered viable if it had no LGE or had any LGE and produced IR during LDD stimulation. ROC analysis demonstrated that ≥ 50% of viable segments from all dysfunctional and revascularised segments in a patient predict significant improvement in LVEF with a 69% sensitivity and 70% specificity (AUC 0.7, p = 0.05). The cut-off of ≥ 3 viable segments was a less useful predictor of significant global LV recovery.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>LDD-CMR is superior to LGE-CMR as a predictor of segmental recovery. The advantage is greatest in the segments with an LGE from 26% to 75%. The RIM cut-off value of 4 mm had no superiority over the LGE cut-off value of 50% in predicting the segmental recovery. Patients with ≥ 50% of viable segments from all dysfunctional and revascularised had a tendency to improve LVEF by ≥ 5% after revascularisation.</p>
url http://www.jcmr-online.com/content/13/1/35
work_keys_str_mv AT celutkienejelena valueofscarimagingandinotropicreservecombinationforthepredictionofsegmentalandgloballeftventricularfunctionalrecoveryafterrevascularisation
AT skorniakovviktor valueofscarimagingandinotropicreservecombinationforthepredictionofsegmentalandgloballeftventricularfunctionalrecoveryafterrevascularisation
AT palionisdarius valueofscarimagingandinotropicreservecombinationforthepredictionofsegmentalandgloballeftventricularfunctionalrecoveryafterrevascularisation
AT valevicienenomeda valueofscarimagingandinotropicreservecombinationforthepredictionofsegmentalandgloballeftventricularfunctionalrecoveryafterrevascularisation
AT glaveckaitesigita valueofscarimagingandinotropicreservecombinationforthepredictionofsegmentalandgloballeftventricularfunctionalrecoveryafterrevascularisation
AT tamosiunasalgirdas valueofscarimagingandinotropicreservecombinationforthepredictionofsegmentalandgloballeftventricularfunctionalrecoveryafterrevascularisation
AT uzdavinysgiedrius valueofscarimagingandinotropicreservecombinationforthepredictionofsegmentalandgloballeftventricularfunctionalrecoveryafterrevascularisation
AT lauceviciusaleksandras valueofscarimagingandinotropicreservecombinationforthepredictionofsegmentalandgloballeftventricularfunctionalrecoveryafterrevascularisation
_version_ 1716744801659912192