Myocardial viability in chronic ischemic heart disease: comparison of delayed-enhancement magnetic resonance imaging with 99mTc-sestamibi and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose single-photon emission computed tomography.

Qiong Liu,Shihua Zhao,Chaowu Yan,Minjie Lu,Shiliang Jiang,Yan Zhang,Shiguo Li,Yuqing Liu,Minfu Yang,Zuoxiang He
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0b013e32832b529e
2009-01-01
Nuclear Medicine Communications
Abstract:Objectives We sought to compare delayed-enhancement MRI (DE-MRI) with Tc-99m-sestamibi and F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-18-FDG) single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) for the assessment of myocardial viability. Methods Thirty-four patients with prior myocardial infarction underwent DE-MRI and Tc-99m-sestamibi/F-18-FDG SPECT. The area of delayed enhancement by DE-MRI was defined as scar tissue. The region with concordantly reduced perfusion and glucose metabolism was defined as nonviable myocardium. In a 17-segment model, the segmental extent of hyperenhancement was compared with segmental Tc-99m-sestamibi and F-18-FDG uptake defect. All segments were divided into five different severities by segmental extent of hyperenhancement in DE-MRI and were classified into different viability situations by segmental Tc-99m-sestamibi and F-18-FDG uptake in SPECT. Results A total of 578 segments were studied. Sensitivity and specificity of DE-MRI in identifying segments with flow/metabolism match were 61.32 and 95.35%, respectively. Semiquantitatively assessed relative MRI scar tissue correlated well with Tc-99m-sestamibi and F-18-FDG SPECT (r=0.63, P=0.0284). However, of the 431 segments defined as normal by DE-MRI, 82 segments (19%) were scored as nonviable by F-18-FDG SPECT. During these segments, 48 showed less than 50% reduced F-18-FDG uptake, 25 showed 50-75% reduced F-18-FDG uptake, and nine showed no F-18-FDG uptake. Conclusion MRI hyperenhancement as a marker of myocardial scar closely agrees with Tc-99m-sestamibi and F-18-FDG SPECT. Nuclear technology and DE-MRI show their own predominance and limitation in assessment of myocardial viability and detecting irreversibly injured tissue. Nucl Med Commun 30:610-616 (C) 2009 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?