Advertisement

Viability assessment: clinical applications

Chapter
Part of the Developments in Cardiovascular Medicine book series (DICM, volume 226)

Abstract

Myocardial viability assessment is indicated in patients with severe coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction (Table 1) [1–10]. In many other patients, viability assessment is not indicated (Table 2). There are different endpoints for viability assessment (Table 3). These endpoints need to be assessed quantitatively, and be tailored to the individual patient, for example, in an asymptomatic patient improvement in survival is desirable, while in an elderly patient with heart failure improvement in the quality of life may be more important. In some patients, all endpoints may be achievable because they are interdependent ie., improvement in wall motion, ejection fraction (EF), quality of life and survival. Improvement in survival may occur without improvement in wall motion or EF, possibly because coronary revascularization in patients with viable myocardium may prevent further deterioration of LV dysfunction or death (Table 4). It is also conceivable that the timing after coronary revascularization is crucial for the detection of improvement of LV function. Histological changes of de-differentiation in severe cases of hibernation may be slow to recover; improvement may occur at 6 to 12 months rather than 3 to 6 weeks, which is the conventional time period for follow-up studies [4–6]. In other patients, improvement may not occur because of subendocardial scarring. It is presumed that the inner most layer of the myocardium is responsible for the resting wall motion. Therefore, though there is sufficient viable myocardium in the outer layer to result in improvement in quality of life and survival after coronary revascularization, there is no improvement in regional function. More recently using magnetic resonance imaging with a tagging technique, a significant role of the subepicardium to regional LV function has been demonstrated. After coronary revascularization, the subepicardial viable myocardium has been shown to result in improvement in regional function and if such improvement involves a sufficient zone of the myocardium, there is also increase in EF [11]. Thus, while improvement in wall motion (or EF) are appropriate endpoints for viability assessment, it is possible that improvement in quality of life and survival could be achieved with modest or no change in regional function. It should also be noted that improvement in wall motion is often assessed subjectively and precise registration on segmental basis is difficult when different methods are used to assess perfusion and function (see below). There are other potential reasons for discordance between viability assessment and endpoints (Table 5) [1–3]. It is possible that LV volume affects significantly the ability of revascularization to improve regional and global LV function and survival even if there is reversible myocardial ischemia [12].

Keywords

Wall Motion Viable Myocardium Coronary Revascularization Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Iskandrian AS, Heo J, Schelbert HR. Myocardial viability: methods of assessment and clinical relevance. Am Heart J 1996;132:1226–1235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Iskander S, Iskandrian AE. Prognostic utility of myocardial viability assessment. Am J Cardiol 1999;83:696–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iskandrian AE, Verani MS: Myocardial viability. In: Iskandrian AE, Nuclear cardiac imaging: principles and applications. 2nd edition. Philadelphia: FA Davis; 1996. p. 305–321.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kloner RA, Bolli R, Marban E, Reinlib L, Braunwald E. Medical and cellular implications of stunning, hibernation, and preconditioning: an NHLBI workshop. Circulation 1998;97:1848–1867.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Camici PG, Wijns W, Borgers M et al. Pathophysiological mechanisms of chronic reversible left ventricular dysfunction due to coronary artery disease (hibernating myocardium). Circulation 1997;96:3205–3214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vanoverscheide JL, Wijns W, Borgers M et al. Chronic myocardial hibernation in humans. From bedside to bench. Circulation 1997;95:1961–1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bax JJ, Cornel JH, Visser FC et al. Prediction of recovery of myocardial dysfunction after revascularization. Comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose/thallium-201 SPECT, thallium-201 stress-reinjection SPECT and dobutamine echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28:558–564.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gheorghiade M, Bonow RO. Chronic heart failure in the United States: a manifestation of coronary artery disease. Circulation 1998;97:282–289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Udelson JE. Steps forward in the assessment of myocardial viability in left ventricular dysfunctions. Circulation 1998;97:833–838.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dilsizian V. Myocardial viability: contractile reserve or cell membrane integrity? J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;28:443–446.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bogaert J, Maes A, Van de Werf F et al. Functional recovery of subepicardial myocardial tissue in transmural myocardial infarction after successful reperfusion: an important contribution to the improvement of regional and global left ventricular function. Circulation 1999;99:36–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yamaguchi A, Ino T, Adachi H et al. Left ventricular volume predicts postoperative course in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Ann Thorac Surg 1998,65:434–438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kitsiou AN, Srinivasan G, Quyumi AA, Summers RM, Bacharach SL, Dilsizian V. Stress-induced reversible and mild-to-moderate irreversible thallium defects: are they equally accurate for predicting recovery of regional left ventricular function after revascularization? Circulation 1998;98:501–508.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schumacher B, Pecher P, von Specht BU, Stegmann T. Induction of neoangiogenosis in ischemic myocardium by human growth factors: first clinical results of a new treatment of coronary heart disease. Circulation 1998;97:645–650.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Myerburg RJ, Mitrani R, Inerian A Jr, Castellanos A. Interpretation of outcomes of antiarrhythmic clinical trials: design features and population impact. Circulation 1998;97:1514–1521.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    The SOLVD Investigators. Effect of enalapril on survival in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fractions and congestive heart failure. N Engl J Med 1991;325:293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sacks FM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA et al. The effect of pravastatin or coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events Trial investigators. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1001–1009.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pedersen TR, Kjekshus J, Berg K et al. Cholesterol lowering and the use of healthcare resources. Results of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study. Circulation 1996;93:1796–1802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mancini GBJ, Henry GC, Macaya C et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition with quinapril improves endothelial vasomotor dysfunction in patients with coronary artery disease: The TREND (Trial on Reversing Endothelial Dysfunction) Study. Circulation. 1996;94:258–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chen C, Ma L, Linfert DR et al. Myocardial cell death and apoptosis in hibernating myocardium. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:1407–1412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Louie HW, Laks H, Milgalter E et al. Ischemic cardiomyopathy. Criteria for coronary revascularization and cardiac transplantation. Circulation 1991;84(5 Suppl):III290–295.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gioia G, Bagheri B, Gottlieb CD et al. Prediction of outcome of patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias treated with automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillators using SPECT perfusion imaging. Circulation 1997;95:390–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kothari M, Bagheri B, Hessen S et al. Outcome of patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31(2 Suppl A):181A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bigger JT Jr. Prophylactic use of implanted cardiac defibrillators in patients at high risk for ventricular arrhythmias after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG) Patch Trial Investigators. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1569–1575.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Margonato A, Mailhac A, Bonetti F et al. Exercise-induced ischemic arrhythmias in patients with previous myocardial infarction: role of perfusion and tissue viability. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27:593–598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huitink JM, Visser FC, Bax JJ et al. Predictive value of planar 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose imaging for cardiac events in patients after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1998;81:1072–1077.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sicari R, Picano E, Landi P et al. Prognostic value of dobutamine-atropine stress echocardiography early after acute myocardial infarction. Echo Dobutamine International Cooperative (EDIC) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;29:254–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carlos ME, Smart SC, Wynsen JC, Sagar KB. Dobutamine stress echocardiography for risk stratification after myocardial infarction. Circulation 1997;95:1402–1410.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Basu S, Senior R, Raval U, Lahiri R. Superiority of nitrate-enhanced 201T1 over conventional redistribution 201T1 imaging for prognostic evaluation after myocardial infarction and thrombolysis. Circulation 1997;96:2932–2937.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Petretta M, Cuocolo A, Bonaduce D et al. Incremental prognostic value of thallium reinjection after stress-redistribution imaging in patients with previous myocardial infarction and left ventricular dysfunction. J Nucl Med 1997;38:195–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haas F, Haehnel CJ, Picker W et al. Preoperative positron emission tomographic viability assessment and perioperative and postoperative risk in patients with advanced ischemic heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:1693–1700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pagley PR, Beller GA, Watson DD, Gimple LW, Ragosta M. Improved outcome after coronary bypass surgery in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathic and residual myocardial viability. Circulation 1997;96:793–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vom Dahl J, Altehoefer C, Sheehan FH et al. Effect of myocardial viability assessed by technetium-99m-sestamibi SPECT and fluorine-18-FDG PET on clinical outcome in coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med 1997;38:742–748.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gioia G, Milan E, Guibbini R, De Pace N, Heo J, Iskandrian AS. Prognostic value of tomographic rest-redistribution thallium-201 imaging in medically treated patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction. J Nucl Cardiol 1996;3:150–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gioia G, Powers J, Heo J, Iskandrian AS. Prognostic value of rest-redistribution tomographic thallium-201 imaging in ischemic cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol 1995;75:759–762.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Di Carli MF, Davidson M, Little R et al. Value of metabolic imaging with positron emission tomography for evaluating prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction. Am J Cardiol 1994;73:527–533.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dreyfus GD, Duboc D, Blasco A et al. Myocardial viability assessment in ischemic cardiomyopathy: benefits of coronary revascularization. Ann Thorac Surg 1994;57:1402–1408.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lee KS, Marwick TH, Cook SA et al. Prognosis of patients with left ventricular dysfunction, with and without viable myocardium after myocardial infarction. Relative efficacy of medical therapy and revascularization. Circulation 1994;90:2687–2694.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tamaki N, Kawamoto M, Takahashi N, et al. Prognostic value of an increase in fluorine-18 deoxyglucose uptake in patients with myocardial infarction: Comparison with stress thallium imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993;22:1621–1627.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Eitzman D, Al-Aouar Z, Kanter HL et al. Clinical outcome of patients with advanced coronary artery disease after viability studies with positron emission tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 1992;20:559–565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Williams MJ, Odabashian J, Lauer MS, Thomas JD, Marwick TH. Prognostic value of dobutamine echocardiography in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996;27:132–139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Petretta M, Cuocolo A, Nicolai E, Acampa W, Salvatore M, Bonaduce D. Combined assessment of left ventricular function and rest-redistribution regional myocardial thallium-201 activity for prognostic evaluation of patients with chronic coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction. J Nucl Cardiol 1998;5:378–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Elefteriades JA, Morales DL, Gradel C, Tolis G Jr, Levi E, Zaret BL. Results of coronary artery bypass grafting by a single surgeon in patients with left ventricular ejection fractions < or = 30%. Am J Cardiol 1997;79:1573–1578.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Iskandrian S, Gioia G, Pancholy S, Dileva K, Heo J, Iskandrian AS. Prognosis of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction after coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol 1996;77:199–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ragosta M, Beller GA, Watson DD, Kaul S, Giumple LW. Quantitative planar rest-redistribution 201Tl imaging in detection of myocardial viability and prediction of improvement in left ventricular function after coronary bypass surgery in patients with severely depressed left ventricular function. Circulation 1993;87:1630–1641.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Orlandi C, Quin JB, Iskandrian AE et al. Prediction of outcome after coronary revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: the I-123-IPPA viability multicenter study [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31(2 Suppl A):260A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Marzullo P. Revascularization of viable myocardium favourably influences long-term outcome of patients with severe but not moderate ischemic left ventricular dysfunction [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998;31(2 Suppl A):375A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Iskandrian AE, Acio E. Methodology of a novel myocardial viability protocol. J Nucl Cardiol 1998;5:206–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Narula J, Dawson MS, Mishra J et al. Noninvasive characterization of stunned, hibernating, remodeled and nonviable myocardium in ischemic cardiomyopathy. In press 1999.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Amanullah AM, Chaudhry FA, Narula J et al. Contractile reserve and myocardial ischemia in patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Comparison of dobutamine echocardiography, dobutamine SPECT sestamibi and rest-redistribution thallium-201 SPECT. Iin press 1999.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sun KT, Czernin J, Krivokapich J et al. Effects of dobutamine stimulation on myocardial blood flow, glucose metabolism, and wall motion in normal and dysfunctional myocardium. Circulation 1996;94:3146–3154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2000

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations