Why the study?
Does phase standard deviation (phase-SD) measured by radionuclide angiocardiography correlate with clinical outcomes and LV function in post-myocardial infarction patients?
Does phase standard deviation (phase-SD) measured by radionuclide angiocardiography correlate with clinical outcomes and LV function in post-myocardial infarction patients?
Phase standard deviation derived from radionuclide angiocardiography is a clinically relevant prognostic factor for mortality and LV dysfunction after myocardial infarction.
Elevated phase-SD may flag higher 1-year mortality risk post-MI; leaves open incremental prognostic value in prospective cohorts.
One hundred and one representative post‐myocardial infarction (MI) patients were investigated with radionuclide angiocardiography (RNA) and exercise test within 1 month of the MI and after 6 and 12 months. From the RNA were calculated the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and a quantified phase image, the phase standard deviation (phase‐SD), representing the timing of the left ventricular contraction. The mean phase‐SD was significantly higher among these patients (18°, 19° and 18°, respectively, at the three investigations) compared to phase‐SD in normals (6°), indicating an impaired timing of the left ventricular (LV) contraction. At all three investigations a significant correlation was found between the phase‐SD and the LVEF (r=0.58, r=‐0.74 and r=‐0.75, respectively) and the corrected QT interval (r=0.27, r=0.44 and r=0.39, respectively). Maximal serum ASAT in patients with their first MI correlated significantly to phase‐SD. Low exercise capacity or unfavourable NYHA classification was associated with high phase‐SD. Phase‐SD higher than mean was also associated with significantly increased mortality during the follow‐up year (P=0.0057). In conclusion, phase‐SD, reflecting the timing of the LV contraction wave, is easily accessible and clinically relevant. It merits further investigation as a prognostic factor after an MI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Juul‐Möller et al. (1988) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: