The case for cardiac magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography multimodality imaging of myocardial viability

Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 527-528

  Beller, George A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DOBUTAMINE; FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE F 18; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE; METHOXY ISOBUTYL ISONITRILE TECHNETIUM TC 99M; NITRATE; TETROFOSMIN; THALLIUM 201;

CARDIOMYOPATHY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONGESTIVE CARDIOMYOPATHY; CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE COST; HEART AMYLOIDOSIS; HEART DEATH; HEART INFARCTION; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE FAILURE; HEART MUSCLE REVASCULARIZATION; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MITRAL VALVE REGURGITATION; MORTALITY; MYOCARDIAL DISEASE; MYOCARDIAL PERFUSION IMAGING; MYOCARDITIS; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SARCOIDOSIS; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; SURVIVAL RATE;

CELL SURVIVAL; CICATRIX; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MYOCARDIUM; POSITRON-EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; SUBTRACTION TECHNIQUE; VENTRICULAR DYSFUNCTION, LEFT;

EID: 77956554874     PISSN: 10713581     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12350-010-9270-y     Document Type: Editorial

References (9)

1. Schinkel AFL, Poldermans D, Elhendy A, Bax J. Assessment of myocardial viability in patients with heart failure. J Nucl Med 2007;48:1135-46.
2. Allman KC, Shaw LJ, Hachamovitch R, Udelson JE. Myocardial viability testing and impact of revascularization on prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and severe left ventricular dysfunction: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1151-8.
3. Abraham A, Nichol G, Williams KA, Guo A, deKemp RA, Garrard L, et al. 18F-FDG PET imaging of myocardial viability in an experienced center with access to 18FDG and integration with clinical management teams: The Ottawa-FIVE substudy of the PARR 2 trial. J Nucl Med 2010;51:567-74.
4. Hage FG, Venkataraman R, Aljaroudi W, Bravo PE, McLarry J, Faulkner M, et al. The impact of viability assessment using myocardial perfusion imaging on patient management and outcome. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:378-89.
5. Kim RJ, Wu E, Rafael A, Chen E-L, Parker MA, Simonetti O, et al. The use of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to identify reversible myocardial dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1445-53.
6. Wagner A, Mahrholdt H, Holly TA, Elliott MD, Regenfus M, Parker M, et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI and routine single photon emission tomography (SPECT) perfusion imaging for detection of subendocardial infarcts: An imaging study. Lancet 2003;361:374-79.
7. Maddahi J. Viability assessment with MRI is superior to FDG-PET for viability: Pro. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:292-7.
8. Patterson RE, Sigman SR, O'Donnell RE, Eisner RL. Viability assessment with MRI is superior to FDG PET for viability: Con. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:298-309.
9. De Winter O, Van de Veire N, Van Heuversqijn F, Van Pottelberge G, Gillebert TC, De Sutter J. Relationship between QRS duration, left ventricular volumes and prevalence of nonviability in patients with coronary artery disease and severe left ventricular dysfunction. Eur J Heart Fail 2006;8:275-7.