Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Echocardiographic and cardiac single photon emission computed tomography predictors of left ventricle reverse remodeling after surgical revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricle systolic dysfunction

Martin Hutyra, Tomas Skala, Milan Kaminek, Petr Nemec

Language English Country Czech Republic

SPECTBackground: The extent of scar or viable hypocontractile myocardial tissue determines postinfarction left ventricleremodeling. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the revascularization eff ect in a group of patients with ischemiccardiomyopathy and LV systolic dysfunction indicated for surgical revascularization, based on evidence for multivesseldisease on coronarography and viable myocardium (CMR, SPECT).Aims: To evaluate the revascularization eff ect in patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction and to fi nd preoperativepredictors of revascularization eff ect.Methods: 33 patients (64±11 years) with baseline LVEF 34.9±9.3 % were included in the study. After a follow-upof 10.7±1.2 months, ECHO and SPECT were performed again. The whole group of patients was divided according torevascularization eff ect (^LVEF > 5 % and ˇLVESV > 5 % compared with baseline) into revascularization responders(R, n = 22) and nonresponders (NR, n = 11).Results: At baseline there was no diff erence between the subgroups in LVEF (R = 35.7±11.0 % vs. NR = 34.3±8.2 %),EDV (R = 183.6±43.2 vs. NR = 180.2±80.5 ml), ESV (R = 118.5±40.4 vs. NR = 119.7±55.2 ml).The responders showed in a revascularization eff ect subanalysis diff erences in the values of LVEF (+9.8±8.1 %,p < 0.009), reduction of EDV (–39.9±50.9 ml, p = 0.05) and ESV (–35.4±42.6 ml, p = 0,002) compared with baseline.The only preoperative parameters predicting LV reverse remodeling were the TE-Em (R = –10.6±44.1 vs. NR =29.7±43.7 ms, p = 0.037) and the size of fi xed perfusion defect (FPD) (R = 11.9±13.5 vs. NR = 22.9±15.3 % of LV,p = 0.044).Conclusions: Patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction with a preoperatively determined myocardial viabilitydevelop LV reverse remodeling. The only preoperative parameters predicting LV reverse remodeling were echocardiographicTE-Em and FPD on SPECT.

References provided by Crossref.org

Bibliography, etc.

Lit.: 26

000      
00000naa 2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc10009369
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20111210162321.0
008      
100420s2008 xr e eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.5507/bp.2008.021 $2 doi
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $c ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Hutyra, Martin, $d 1974- $7 xx0013232
245    10
$a Echocardiographic and cardiac single photon emission computed tomography predictors of left ventricle reverse remodeling after surgical revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and left ventricle systolic dysfunction / $c Martin Hutyra, Tomas Skala, Milan Kaminek, Petr Nemec
314    __
$a 1. Department of Internal Medicine Teaching Hospital, Olomouc
504    __
$a Lit.: 26
520    9_
$a SPECTBackground: The extent of scar or viable hypocontractile myocardial tissue determines postinfarction left ventricleremodeling. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the revascularization eff ect in a group of patients with ischemiccardiomyopathy and LV systolic dysfunction indicated for surgical revascularization, based on evidence for multivesseldisease on coronarography and viable myocardium (CMR, SPECT).Aims: To evaluate the revascularization eff ect in patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction and to fi nd preoperativepredictors of revascularization eff ect.Methods: 33 patients (64±11 years) with baseline LVEF 34.9±9.3 % were included in the study. After a follow-upof 10.7±1.2 months, ECHO and SPECT were performed again. The whole group of patients was divided according torevascularization eff ect (^LVEF > 5 % and ˇLVESV > 5 % compared with baseline) into revascularization responders(R, n = 22) and nonresponders (NR, n = 11).Results: At baseline there was no diff erence between the subgroups in LVEF (R = 35.7±11.0 % vs. NR = 34.3±8.2 %),EDV (R = 183.6±43.2 vs. NR = 180.2±80.5 ml), ESV (R = 118.5±40.4 vs. NR = 119.7±55.2 ml).The responders showed in a revascularization eff ect subanalysis diff erences in the values of LVEF (+9.8±8.1 %,p < 0.009), reduction of EDV (–39.9±50.9 ml, p = 0.05) and ESV (–35.4±42.6 ml, p = 0,002) compared with baseline.The only preoperative parameters predicting LV reverse remodeling were the TE-Em (R = –10.6±44.1 vs. NR =29.7±43.7 ms, p = 0.037) and the size of fi xed perfusion defect (FPD) (R = 11.9±13.5 vs. NR = 22.9±15.3 % of LV,p = 0.044).Conclusions: Patients with ischemic LV systolic dysfunction with a preoperatively determined myocardial viabilitydevelop LV reverse remodeling. The only preoperative parameters predicting LV reverse remodeling were echocardiographicTE-Em and FPD on SPECT.
650    _2
$a srdeční selhání $x diagnóza $x chirurgie $7 D006333
650    _2
$a ischemická choroba srdeční $x diagnóza $x chirurgie $x patologie $7 D017202
650    _2
$a dysfunkce levé srdeční komory $x chirurgie $7 D018487
650    _2
$a revaskularizace myokardu $x metody $x využití $7 D009204
650    _2
$a funkce levé komory srdeční $7 D016277
650    _2
$a remodelace komor $7 D020257
650    _2
$a echokardiografie $x metody $x využití $7 D004452
650    _2
$a jednofotonová emisní výpočetní tomografie $x metody $x využití $7 D015899
650    _2
$a radioisotopová scintigrafie $x metody $x využití $7 D011877
650    _2
$a prognóza $7 D011379
650    _2
$a statistika jako téma $7 D013223
650    _2
$a výsledky a postupy - zhodnocení (zdravotní péče) $7 D010043
650    _2
$a medicína založená na důkazech $x trendy $7 D019317
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a pilotní projekty $7 D010865
700    1_
$a Skála, Tomáš $7 xx0137536
700    1_
$a Kamínek, Milan, $d 1965- $7 xx0035550
700    1_
$a Němec, Petr, $d 1954- $7 xx0033694
773    0_
$w MED00012606 $t Biomedical papers $g Roč. 152, č. 1 (2008), s. 129-137 $x 1213-8118
856    41
$u http://biomed.papers.upol.cz/pdfs/bio/2008/01/21.pdf $y plný text volně přístupný
910    __
$a ABA008 $b A 1502 $c 958 $y 8
990    __
$a 20100419115931 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20100510115948 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 723244 $s 586359
BAS    __
$a 3
BMC    __
$a 2008 $b 152 $c 1 $d 129-137 $i 1213-8118 $m Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacký, Olomouc Czech Republic $x MED00012606
LZP    __
$a 2010-22/dkal

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...