Evaluation of the Therapeutic Effectiveness of Coronary Stenting for Acute Myocardial Infarction Using 99Tcm-Mibi SPECT Imaging

王铁,武秀朵,胡大一,李田昌,贾三庆,陈方
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-2848.2001.02.002
2001-01-01
Abstract:Objective To evaluate and compare the theraputic effectiveness of primary coronary stenting with that of intravenous thrombolysis therapy for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) using 99Tcm-MIBI myocardial SPECT imaging. Methods A tatal of 42 patients with AMI was undergoing primary coronary stenting (stenting group, 23 patients) or intravenous thrombolysis therapy (thrombolysis group, 19 patients). 99Tcm-MIBI myocardial SPECT imaging was performed before and 1-week after stenting or thrombolysis therapy. The left ventricular myocardium of each patient was divided into 20 segments. The semiquantitative score of myocardial 99Tcm-MIBI uptake was expressed with a five-point scoring system. The scores of scanning before stenting or intravenous thrombolysis was described as SBS,and the scores of scanning after stenting or intravenous thrombolysis was described as SAS. Deducting SAS from SBS resulted in SDS. Results The paired results of the stenting group vs thrombolysis group are as follows: SBS was 41.3±9.8 and 39.4±7.9 (t=1.2, P>0.05); SAS was 17.8±6.4 and 27.3±6.7 (t=5.8, P<0.01); SDS was 24.5±4.2 and 12.2±2.3 (t=7.3,P<0.01). In 193 defect segments before stenting, 106 segments (54.9%) recovered to normal after stenting. In 149 defect segments before intravenous thrombolysis, 61 segments (40.9%) recovered to normal after thrombolysis therapy. The comparison between stenting group and thrombolysis group in improved rate of the myocardial perfusion defect scores indicated that there was a significant difference (P<0.01). Conclusions 99Tcm-MIBI myocardial SPECT imaging has been proved to be an objective parameter for evaluating the therapeutic effectiveness of the stenting and intravenous thrombolysis in treatment of AMI. At the same time, the results indicate that primary coronary stenting seems to be more effective than intravenous thrombolysis.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?