Key result
Enoximone echocardiography demonstrated greater specificity (87% vs 70%, P<0.01) and positive predictive value (82% vs 68%, P<0.05) for predicting functional recovery compared with PET.
Why the study?
Does enoximone echocardiography compare favorably with (18)F-FDG PET for predicting functional recovery after revascularization in postinfarction patients?
Observational (n=25)
Does enoximone echocardiography compare favorably with (18)F-FDG PET for predicting functional recovery after revascularization in postinfarction patients?
Enoximone echocardiography offers greater specificity and positive predictive value than 18F-FDG PET for predicting functional recovery after revascularization in postinfarction patients.
Enoximone echocardiography may offer higher specificity than PET for viability assessment; leaves open need for randomized trials before changing revascularization decisions.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate enoximone echocardiography (EE) for the identification of residual myocardial viability in postinfarction patients. Findings obtained during EE were compared with those acquired by myocardial uptake of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) and functional follow-up results. METHODS: Twenty-five patients underwent EE and PET (18)F-FDG studies. An asynergic segment was considered as having contractile enhancement when the wall motion score decreased by > or = 1 grade during EE and was defined as viable if (18)F-FDG uptake score was > or = 2 grade on PET. RESULTS: Of 293 dysfunctional segments at baseline, 139 (47%) were viable by PET criteria; 117 (40%) had contractile enhancement induced by enoximone (P = 0.07). Agreement between EE and PET was found in 75% of involved segments (K = 0.46, P < 0.001). The majority of discrepancies (65%, P < 0.01) were mainly due to discordant segments in which PET revealed evidence of (18)F-FDG uptake but EE showed no change in wall motion. In 179 revascularized segments, negative predictive value for functional recovery of both tests reached the same value (89% for both), whereas positive predictive value was 82% for EE and 68% for PET, respectively (P < 0.05). Sensitivity was 85% for EE and 88% for PET (P = ns); specificity was 87% and 70%, respectively (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: EE yields a fair concordance with PET study. Compared with PET, despite a similar negative accuracy, EE shows a greater specificity for prediction of function recovery after revascularization. (Echocardiography 2010;27:544-551).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lu et al. (2010) conducted an observational in Previous myocardial infarction (n=25). Enoximone echocardiography vs. Positron emission tomography (PET) was evaluated on Positive predictive value for functional recovery in revascularized segments (p=<0.05). Enoximone echocardiography demonstrated greater specificity (87% vs 70%, P<0.01) and positive predictive value (82% vs 68%, P<0.05) for predicting functional recovery compared with PET.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: