Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Myocardial Viability: CMR

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Myocardial Viability: CMR"— Presentation transcript:

1 Myocardial Viability: CMR
A major teaching hospital of Harvard Medical School Myocardial Viability: CMR Thomas H. Hauser MD, MMSc, MPH, FACC Director of Nuclear Cardiology Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Assistant Professor of Medicine Harvard Medical School Boston, MA

2 Case A 79-year-old man with a history of “heart attacks” in 1978 and 1979 presented with increasing dyspnea on exertion over several months. He also noted increasing fatigue over the same time period. He otherwise felt well. Physical examination revealed a HR of 60 with a BP of 115/65. His lungs were clear. His heart sounds were normal. There was no peripheral edema. He was referred for a nuclear myocardial perfusion study to further evaluate his symptoms.

3 Imaging Protocol Stress: Prone 99mTc-Sestamibi Rest: Prone 201Tl

4 Nuclear Myocardial Perfusion: Slices

5 Nuclear Myocardial Perfusion: Gated

6 Nuclear Myocardial Perfusion: LVEF

7 Case The nuclear myocardial perfusion study was interpreted as having a large, severe fixed defect involving the LAD territory. The left ventricular cavity size was increased with severe systolic dysfunction due to akinesis in the territory of the defect. He was referred for cardiac catheterization.

8 Cardiac Catheterization
Coronary angiography demonstrated left main and 3 vessel disease in a left dominant system. The left main had a discrete, distal 60% stenosis. The LAD was occluded proximally and filled via left to left collaterals. The large ramus branch had a 80% stenosis. The OM branch of the LCX had a tubular 70-80% stenosis. The RCA had a proximal smooth, 70% stenosis and a 70% distal stenosis.

9 Case Should the patient be revascularized?

10 Dysfunctional but Viable Myocardium
LVEF 32% LVEF 54% Horn HR, Teichholz LE, Cohn PF, Herman MV, Gorlin R. Augmentation of left ventricular contraction pattern in coronary artery disease by an inotropic catecholamine: the epinephrine ventriculogram. Circulation 1974;49:

11 Dysfunctional but Viable Myocardium
Hibernating Chronic ischemia or repetitive stunning Ultrastructural changes that result in Disassembly of contractile apparatus Recovery in weeks or months after revascularization Stunned Acute ischemia No ultrastructural changes Recovery in minutes to days after revascularization

12 CABG in Patients with LV Dysfunction
Chareonthaitawee et al, JACC 2005;46:567

13 Importance of Viable Myocardium
J Am Coll Cardiol 2002;39:1151

14 Prevalence of Myocardial Viability
Schinkel et al, J Nucl Med 2007; 48:1135

15 Evaluation of Viability
Chareonthaitawee et al, JACC 2005;46:567

16 Evaluation of Viability
SPECT 201Tl 99mTc 123I Fatty Acids PET Agents PET 18FDG 11C Acetate Echocardiography Dobutamine CMR Late gadolinium enhancement (hyperenhancement, delayed enhancement) Dobutamine CMR

17 SPECT 201Tl most commonly used Several protocols for use
Stress – redistribution Rest – redistribution Usually imaged 4 to 24 hours after initial injection With or without reinjection Usually at 4 hours Perfusion tracer initially Ischemia is a sign of viability Membrane integrity tracer in the late phase K analog Assesses integrity of membrane and Na-K-ATPase

18 SPECT 99mTc also helpful Stress – rest protocol Perfusion tracer
Ischemia is a sign of viability Membrane integrity tracer Trapped by active mitochondria

19 201Tl Uptake and Recovery of Function
Perrone-Filardi P, Pace L, Pratarto M, et al. Dobutamine echocardiography predicts improvement of hypoperfused dysfunctional myocardium after revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation ;91:

20 Comparison of 201Tl and 99mTc
Udelson JE, Coleman PS, Metherall J, et al. Predicting recovery of severe regional ventricular dysfunction. Comparison of resting scintigraphy with 201Tl and 99mTc-sestamibi. Circulation ;89:

21 Nuclear Myocardial Perfusion: Slices

22 Case Based on the nuclear myocardial perfusion images, revascularization would not be predicted to improve his left ventricular systolic function. Because he was otherwise a good operative candidate, further evaluation of viability was pursued

23 PET All PET agents (18FDG, 11C acetate) assess cardiac energy metabolism. 18FDG imaging assesses glucose metabolism Ischemic myocardium generally favors glucose utilization 11C acetate imaging assesses lipid metabolism

24 Importance of Good Patient Preparation
In the assessment of myocardial viability, the quality and utility of the images is highly dependent on appropriate patient preparation Inadequate patient preparation can lead to spurious results or images with no diagnostic value

25 Myocardial Energy Metabolism
Cardiac myocytes are continuously active Require efficient use of energy resources Require continual repletion of energy substrates Faced with varying levels in supply Flexibility in substrate use Glucose Free fatty acids Amino acids

26 FDG Uptake and Retention
glycogen Insulin glut FDG FDG – 6 – P Aerobic Metabolism

27 Acipimox Potent inhibitor of peripheral lypolysis
Drastically reduces FFA in blood As FFA are the principal alternative energy source for the myocardium, glucose utilization increases Relatively independent of insulin and glucose levels Not FDA approved Used in Europe

28 Hyperinsulinemic/Euglycemic Clamp
Simultaneous infusions of insulin and glucose to increase the insulin level while keeping the glucose level from falling High insulin Normal glucose Low FFA High myocardial glucose utilization

29 Glucose Loading Provide a large dose of oral or IV glucose
Endogenous production of insulin Supplemented with exogenous insulin if needed Moderately high insulin Normal glucose Low FFA High myocardial glucose utilization

30 PET: 18FDG Srinivasan G, Kitsiou AN, Bacharach SL, et al. [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography : Can It Replace PET and Thallium SPECT for the Assessment of Myocardial Viability? Circulation ;97:

31 Dobutamine Echocardiography

32 Dobutamine Echocardiography
Low dose dobutamine Typically paired with high dose dobutamine Four typical responses Biphasic response Progressive dysfunction Sustained improvement No change

33 Dobutamine Echocardiograpy
Afridi et al, JACC Group I (n = 85) consisted of patients who had evidence of myocardial viability and subsequently underwent revascularization. Group II (n = 119) consisted of patients with myocardial viability who did not undergo revascularization. Group III (n = 30) consisted of patients who did not have myocardial viability and underwent revascularization. Finally, group IV (n = 84) patients lacked myocardial viability and did not undergo revascularization.

34 Comparison of Techniques
Chareonthaitawee et al, JACC 2005;46:567

35 Gd Contrast Kinetics in Myocardium
Circulation, Dec 1996; 94:

36 Delayed Contrast Enhancement: Bright is Dead
Circulation, Nov 1999; 100:

37 Normal Myocardium

38 Anterior/Apical Scar

39 Ischemic CM with Viable Myocardium

40 Prediction of Recovery of Function
41 patients imaged before and ~80 days after revasc. 78% of segments with no LGE had recovery of function 92% of segments with >50% transmural LGE did not recover 36% of all segments had an intermediate probability of recovery Kim et al, N Engl J Med 2000; 343:

41 Dobutamine CMR Wellnhofer et al, Circulation 2004;109:

42 Dobutamine CMR Wellnhofer et al, Circulation 2004;109:2172-2174
Solid = DCMR, dashed both, hatched LGE. Scar cutoff 25%

43 Case The patient was referred for CMR.

44 SSFP Gated Images

45 Late Gadolinium Enhancement

46 Case The CMR study was interpreted as showing a severely increased cavity size and severe systolic dysfunction with transmural/near transmural late gadolinium enhancement of the mid and distal anterior wall, the distal septum, the distal inferior wall and the apex. He was treated medically and died one year later of complications from a lung mass and progressive congestive heart failure.

47 Which is Better?: CMR vs. PET
Cost Safety Ease of implementation Accuracy

48 Cost Cost Conclusion: CMR is superior (… if you are the payer)
Medicare payment (rough estimate of cost to society) CMR ~$750 PET ~$1400 Hospital margins/physician payments PET > CMR Conclusion: CMR is superior (… if you are the payer)

49 Safety Safety PET Radiation Hypoglycemia CMR NSF Conclusion: CMR and PET are both generally safe in this patient population

50 Ease of Implementation
Patient preparation for FDG PET is arduous

51 CMR: Exellent Spatial Resolution
Wagner et al. Lancet. 2003;361:374

52 PET: Scar is More Important than Mismatch
Beanlands et al evaluated 70 patients before and after revasc. “Scar” score was the most important predictor of recovery of function Superior to mismatch score in both univariate and multivariate analyses Beanlands et al (PARR-1) JACC 2002;40:1735– 43

53 PET Only Images Myocardium, Not Scar
Knuesel et al. Circulation. 2003;108:1095

54 CMR Multicenter Trial Lenge et al imaged 183 patients before and ~6 months after revasc. 72% of segments with no LGE had recovery of function 83% of segments with >50% transmural LGE did not recover 21% of all segments had an intermediate probability of recovery Lenge et al, SCMR 2008

55 PET Multicenter Trial Gerber et al imaged 178 patients before and 2 to 6 months after revasc. Endpoint was >5% improvement in LVEF RVG, echo, LV gram Gerber et al, Eur Heart J 2001; 22, 1691–1701

56 PET: Poor Specificity Gerber et al also assessed myocardial glucose uptake during hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamping Large overlap of normal and dysfunctional segments with wide intra- and inter-patient variation Probable overlap large overlap of segments that recover and do not recover (data not reported) Gerber et al, Eur Heart J 2001; 22, 1691–1701

57 Comparison of FDG and DE-CMR
Knuesel et al. Circulation. 2003;108:1095

58 Direct Comparison of FDG PET and CMR
Wu et al imaged 28 patients before and ~20 days after revasc. CMR (>50% transmural) Sensitivity 92% Specificity 45% PET/SPECT (>50% normalized uptake) Sensitivity 99% Specificity 60% ROC analysis showed no significant difference Wu et al, JNM Vol. 48 No

59 PET: Fails to Improve Clinical Outcomes
Beanlands et al randomized 430 patients to FDG PET guided revascularization or standard care Primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, MI or hospital stay for a cardiac cause at 1 year No significant difference in the primary endpoint or survival Minor effects found in subgroups

60 Comprehensive CMR Evaluation
Structure Function With or without stress Flows Perfusion Scar/Viability Coronary Anatomy

61 FDG and MR for Scar/Viability
Directly assesses metabolism Images viable myocardium Established gold standard for determining recovery of function after revascularization Clinical trial suggests lack of effect on outcomes DE-CMR Directly assesses anatomy Images both scar and viable myocardium Clinically established established Superior spatial resolution compared to FDG Lower cost Easier to implement Part of a comprehensive CMR evaluation

62 Summary Clinical relevance of evaluating myocardial viability SPECT
Tl-201 Tc-99m PET FDG Echocardiography Dobutamine CMR Late gadolinium enhancement Compared CMR and PET

Download ppt "Myocardial Viability: CMR"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google