Key result
Revascularization improved left ventricular systolic function and significantly reduced all-cause mortality (19.2% vs. 44.4%) compared to medical therapy alone in patients with a myocardial scar on SPECT scans, irrespective of PET myocardial viability.
Why the study?
The clinical utility of revascularization decision-making guided by PET viability imaging in patients with myocardial scar on SPECT had not been proven.
Does revascularization improve temporal change in echocardiographic findings in patients with a myocardial scar on MIBI SPECT who underwent PET viability test?
Observational (n=53)
Does revascularization improve temporal change in echocardiographic findings in patients with a myocardial scar on MIBI SPECT who underwent PET viability test?
Absolute Event Rate: 56.1% vs 8.8%
Revascularization improved left ventricular systolic function and survival in patients with myocardial scar on SPECT, regardless of PET-determined viability.
PET viability imaging should not yet guide revascularization decisions; leaves open outcome benefit in larger trials.
Background: Positron emission tomography (PET) viability scan is used to determine whether patients with a myocardial scar on single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) may need revascularization.However, the clinical utility of revascularization decision-making guided by PET viability imaging has not been proven yet.The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of PET to determine revascularization on clinical outcomes.Methods: Between September 2012 and May 2021, 53 patients (37 males; mean age = 64 11 years) with a myocardial scar on MIBI SPECT who underwent PET viability test were analyzed in this study.The primary outcome was a temporal change in echocardiographic findings.The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality.Results: Viable myocardium was presented by PET imaging in 29 (54.7%)patients.Revascularization was performed in 26 (49.1%) patients, including 18 (34.0%)with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and 8 (15.1%) with coronary artery bypass grafting.There were significant improvements in echocardiographic findings in the revascularization group and the viable myocardium group.All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the revascularization group than in the medical therapy-alone group (19.2% vs. 44.4%,log-rank P = 0.002) irrespective of viable (21.4% vs. 46.7%,log-rank P = 0.025) or non-viable myocardium (16.7% vs. 41.7%,log-rank P = 0.046).All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the PCI group than in the medical therapy-alone group (11.1% vs. 44.4%,log-rank P < 0.001).Conclusion: Revascularization improved left ventricular systolic function and survival of patients with a myocardial scar on SPECT scans, irrespective of myocardial viability on PET scans.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Ischemic cardiomyopathy with a myocardial scar (n=53). Revascularization (PCI or CABG) vs. Optimal medical therapy alone was evaluated on Temporal change in left ventricular ejection fraction (%ΔLVEF). Revascularization improved left ventricular systolic function and significantly reduced all-cause mortality (19.2% vs. 44.4%) compared to medical therapy alone in patients with a myocardial scar on SPECT scans, irrespective of PET myocardial viability.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: