Why the study?
To evaluate a novel approach for quantifying right ventricular sympathetic dysfunction in patients diagnosed with ARVC/D using functional SPECT/CT hybrid imaging.
Does 123I-MIBG SPECT/CT imaging differentiate right ventricular sympathetic dysfunction in patients with ARVC/D compared to those with IVF?
Does 123I-MIBG SPECT/CT imaging differentiate right ventricular sympathetic dysfunction in patients with ARVC/D compared to those with IVF?
123I-MIBG SPECT/CT imaging can reliably quantify right ventricular sympathetic innervation and differentiate ARVC/D from IVF patients.
RV/M ratio on 123I-MIBG SPECT/CT may differentiate ARVC/D from IVF; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before clinical use.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate a novel approach for the quantification of right ventricular sympathetic dysfunction in patients diagnosed with ARVC/D through state-of-the-art functional SPECT/CT hybrid imaging. METHODS: I-MIBG-uptake in the left (LV) and right ventricle (RV) was evaluated separately based on anatomic information derived from the CT scan, and compared to the uptake in the mediastinum (M). RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the LV/M ratio between the ARVC/D and the IVF groups (3.2 ± 0.5 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8, P = 0.014), with a cut-off value of 3.41 (77% sensitivity, 80% specificity, AUC 0.78). There was a highly significant difference in the mean RV/M ratios between both groups (1.6 ± 0.3 vs. 2.0 ± 0.2, P = 0.001), with optimal cut-off for discrimination at 1.86 (88% sensitivity, 90% specificity, AUC 0.93). CONCLUSION: Employing state-of-the-art functional SPECT/CT hybrid imaging, we could reliably assess and quantify right and left ventricular sympathetic innervation. The RV/M ratio was significantly lower in patients diagnosed with ARVC/D and provided sensitive and specific discrimination between patients with ARVC/D and IVF patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Todica et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: