Multi-modality imaging for assessment of myocardial viability?

  • Eliana Reyes
Editorial Comment

Original article: Myocardial viability by contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance in patients with coronary artery disease: comparison with gated single-photon emission computed tomography and F18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography by Wu et al.

Assessment of myocardial viability is an important step in the evaluation of patients with heart failure. In patients with obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular impairment, extensive dysfunctional but viable myocardium is associated with poor prognosis, which can be reversed by appropriate intervention [1]. A number of non-invasive imaging procedures have been developed to prospectively characterise dysfunctional but viable myocardium and identify markers of functional recovery. The role of viability testing in identifying those patients in whom the benefit from coronary revascularisation outweighs the risk associated to intervention has been documented in many studies [1, 2]. Only...


  1. 1.
    Allman KC, Shaw LJ, Hachamovitch R, Udelson JE (2002) Myocardial viability testing and impact of revascularization on prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 39:1151–1158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Underwood SR, Bax JJ, vom DJ et al (2004) Imaging techniques for the assessment of myocardial hibernation. Report of a study group of the European society of cardiology. Eur Heart J 25:815–836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hunt SA, Abraham WT, Chin MH et al (2005) ACC/AHA 2005 guideline update for the diagnosis and management of chronic heart failure in the adult. Circulation 112:e154–e235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Swedberg K, Cleland J, Dargie H et al (2005) Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure: executive summary (update 2005): the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic heart failure of the European society of cardiology. Eur Heart J 26:1115–1140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bax JJ, Visser FC, Poldermans D et al (2001) Time course of functional recovery of stunned and hibernating segments after surgical revascularization. Circulation 104:I314–I318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Samady H, Elefteriades JA, Abbott BG, Mattera JA et al (1999) Failure to improve left ventricular function after coronary revascularization for ischemic cardiomyopathy is not associated with worse outcome. Circulation 100:1298–1304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bax JJ, Maddahi J, Poldermans D et al (2002) Sequential 201Tl imaging and dobutamine echocardiography to enhance accuracy of predicting improved left ventricular ejection fraction after revascularisation. J Nucl Med 43:795–802PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    La Canna G, Rahimtoola SH, Visioli O et al (2000) Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive accuracies of noninvasive tests, singly and in combination, for the diagnosis of hibernating myocardium. Eur Heart J 21:1358–1367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim RJ, Wu E, Rafael A et al (2000) The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. N Engl J Med 343:1445–1453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wagner A, Mahrholdt H, Holly TA et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced MRI and routine single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging for detection of subendocardial myocardial infarcts: an imaging study. Lancet 361:374–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klein C, Nekolla SG, Bengel FM et al (2002) Assessment of myocardial viability with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: comparison with positron emission tomography. Circulation 105:162–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Oudiz RJ, Smith DE, Pollak AJ et al (1999) Nitrate-enhanced thallium 201 single-photon emission computed tomography imaging in hibernating myocardium. Am Heart J 138:369–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zimmermann R, Mall G, Rauch B et al (1995) Residual 201Tl activity in irreversible defects as a marker of myocardial viability. Clinicopathological study. Circulation 91:1016–1021PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Acampa W, Petretta M, Florimonte L et al (2000) Sestamibi SPECT in the detection of myocardial viability in patients with chronic ischemic left ventricular dysfunction: comparison between visual and quantitative analysis. J Nucl Cardiol 7:406–413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pasquet A, Robert A, D’Hondt AM et al (1999) Prognostic value of myocardial ischemia and viability in patients with chronic left ventricular ischemic dysfunction. Circulation 100:141–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giorgetti A, Pingitore A, Favilli B et al (2005) Baseline/postnitrate tetrofosmin SPECT for myocardial viability assessment in patients with postischemic severe left ventricular dysfunction: new evidence from MRI. J Nucl Med 46:1285–1293PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ypenburg C, Schalij MJ, Bleeker GB et al (2007) Impact of viability and scar tissue on response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in ischaemic heart failure patients. Eur Heart J 28:33–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Heart and Lung InstituteImperial CollegeLondonUK
  2. 2.Royal Brompton HospitalLondonUK

Personalised recommendations