BACKGROUND: Successful reperfusion therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) improves survival. Indeed, after AMI myocardial dysfunction may be reversible (hibernating or stunned myocardium). Low-dose dobutamine stress echocardiography (LDDSE) provides us with the possibility of evaluating viable myocardial segments, while myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) allows the study of the microcirculation in the same myocardial areas. The aim of our study was to compare LDDSE and MCE, in the prediction of the recovery of segments in patients with AMI who were submitted to primary coronary angioplasty (PTCA). METHODS: We studied 14 patients with AMI. Both LDDSE and MCE with Levovist were performed after primary PTCA. The viability gold standard was a recovery of contractility detected at echocardiography 2 months later. RESULTS: For LDDSE, the sensitivity was 91%, the specificity 71% and the positive and negative predictive values were 93 and 64% respectively. For MCE, the sensitivity was 94%, the specificity 44%, the positive predictive value 89%, and the negative predictive value 59%. Two tests agreed in 81% of the cases. Stress echocardiography and contrast echocardiography agreed in 81% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: LDDSE has a very good positive accuracy, it has an acceptable negative predictive value and is relatively cheap. On the other hand, MCE has a good positive accuracy, but a low negative accuracy and carries a high cost. The integration of these two tests, which are too expensive in clinical practice, could improve our comprehension of the post-PTCA pathophysiology.
Myocardial viability after primary coronary angioplasty: low-dose dobutamine stress echocardiography versus myocardial contrast echocardiography
MORELLO, Mara;SHEIBAN, Imad;
2004-01-01
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Successful reperfusion therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) improves survival. Indeed, after AMI myocardial dysfunction may be reversible (hibernating or stunned myocardium). Low-dose dobutamine stress echocardiography (LDDSE) provides us with the possibility of evaluating viable myocardial segments, while myocardial contrast echocardiography (MCE) allows the study of the microcirculation in the same myocardial areas. The aim of our study was to compare LDDSE and MCE, in the prediction of the recovery of segments in patients with AMI who were submitted to primary coronary angioplasty (PTCA). METHODS: We studied 14 patients with AMI. Both LDDSE and MCE with Levovist were performed after primary PTCA. The viability gold standard was a recovery of contractility detected at echocardiography 2 months later. RESULTS: For LDDSE, the sensitivity was 91%, the specificity 71% and the positive and negative predictive values were 93 and 64% respectively. For MCE, the sensitivity was 94%, the specificity 44%, the positive predictive value 89%, and the negative predictive value 59%. Two tests agreed in 81% of the cases. Stress echocardiography and contrast echocardiography agreed in 81% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: LDDSE has a very good positive accuracy, it has an acceptable negative predictive value and is relatively cheap. On the other hand, MCE has a good positive accuracy, but a low negative accuracy and carries a high cost. The integration of these two tests, which are too expensive in clinical practice, could improve our comprehension of the post-PTCA pathophysiology.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
