ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine1997
Adenosine technetium-99m sestamibi single-photon emission tomography for the assessment of jeopardized myocardium early after acute myocardial infarction. Paradoxical scintigraphic underestimation of jeopardized myocardium in patients with a severe infarct-related stenosis.
Article in European journal of nuclear medicine, 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the value of technetium-99m sestamibi scintigraphy in identifying patients at risk for post-infarct ischaemia (=jeopardized myocardium), especially within the reperfused infarct region. In 51 patients with a recent (<1 month) myocardial infarction, adenosine 99mTc-sestamibi single-photon emission tomography (SPET) and dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) were performed and correlated with the presence of significant coronary artery stenosis [% diameter stenosis (DS) >50%] on quantitative coronary angiography. Regional perfusion activity was analysed semi-quantitatively (score 0-4) on a 13-segment left ventricular model. DSE was used for the estimation of the infarct size (low-dose DSE) and for concomitant evaluation of ischaemia (high-dose DSE). A reversible perfusion defect within the infarct region was observed in 20 of the 37 patients with a significant infarct-related lesion (sensitivity of 54%) and only in one patient without a significant infarct-related lesion (specificity of 93%). Further analysis revealed that the scintigraphic assessment of jeopardized myocardium was fairly good in patients with a moderate (DS 51%-64%) infarct-related stenosis but was inadequate in patients with a severe (DS>/=65%) infarct-related stenosis (sensitivity of 80% vs 36%, P<0.01), while the echocardiographic detection of ischaemia was not influenced by stenosis severity (sensitivity of 73% in both subgroups). This scintigraphic underestimation of jeopardized myocardium was mainly related to a severely impaired myocardial perfusion under baseline conditions, as was evidenced by a significantly more severe rest perfusion score in the infarct region in patients with a severe stenosis as compared to those with a moderate stenosis (average score: 1.5+/-0.7 vs 2.1+/-0.6, P<0.01), while infarct size on echocardiography was similar for both subgroups. It may be concluded that early after an acute myocardial infarction, adenosine 99mTc-sestamibi SPET may underestimate reperfused but still jeopardized myocardium, particularly in patients with a severe infarct-related stenosis. In these patients the evaluation of the ischaemic burden on rest-stress scintigraphy is hampered by the presence of a severely impaired myocardial perfusion in resting conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.