Why the study?
Does Thallium-201 myocardial scintigraphy predict the response to beta-blocker therapy in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy?
Does Thallium-201 myocardial scintigraphy predict the response to beta-blocker therapy in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy?
Thallium-201 myocardial scintigraphy may be useful for predicting the response to beta-blocker therapy in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy.
Tl-201 defect type was associated with beta-blocker response in dilated cardiomyopathy; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before guiding therapy.
This study was performed to evaluate whether thallium-201 myocardial scintigraphy (Tl-201) and iodine-123-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) myocardial scintigraphy could predict the usefulness of beta-blocker therapy in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Tl-201 and MIBG were performed in 47 patients before beta-blocker therapy. Patients were classified into group A, if their cardiac function improved, and group B, whose function remained unchanged. Two types of extent score (ES) by Tl-201 were proposed to quantitate myocardial damage, mean-2SD (ES-2) and mean-3SD (ES-3). The ES difference between ES-2 and ES-3 was calculated, and according to ES and ES difference, DCM cases were classified into 3 groups: mild-defect type (mild-type), moderate-defect type (moderate-type) and severe-defect type (severe-type). The heart-to-mediastinum (H/M) MIBG uptake ratio was evaluated, and the percent washout ratio of myocardial MIBG was obtained from these data. Group A comprised 18 mild-type, 14 moderate-type and 1 severe-type cases, and group B comprised 5 mild-type, 4 moderate-type and 5 severe-type cases. A significant relation was observed between the defect type on Tl-201 and the response to beta-blocker therapy (p=0.0090). Both H/M MIBG uptake ratios and washout ratio were not significantly different in the 2 groups. Tl-201 may be useful for predicting the response to beta-blocker therapy in patients with DCM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hara et al. (2002) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: