Role of Redistribution and 24 Hour Reinjection Images to assess Myocardial Viability in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.
- Author:
Seok Nam YOON
;
Moon Sun PAI
;
Chan H PARK
;
Myung Ho YOON
;
Byung Il CHOI
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
T1-201;
Acute myocardial infarction;
Redistribution;
Reinjection;
Viability
- MeSH:
Complement System Proteins;
Dipyridamole;
Humans;
Myocardial Infarction*;
Myocardium;
Perfusion;
Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon
- From:Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine
1998;32(4):325-331
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: We evaluated the importance of redistribution and 24 hour reinjection images in Tl-201 SPECT assessment of myocardial viability after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed dipyridamole stress-4 hour redistribution-24 hour reinjection Tl-201 SPECT in 43 patients with recent AMI (4-16 days). The myocardium was divided into 16 segments and perfusion grade was measured visually with 4 point score from 0 to 3 (absent uptake to normal uptake). A perfusion defect with stress score 2 was considered moderate. A defect was considered severe if the stress score was 0 or l (absent uptake or severe perfusion decrease). Moderate defect on stress image were considered viable and segments with severe defect were considered viable if they showed improvement of 1 score or more on redistribution or reinjection images. We compared the results of viability assess-ment in stress-redistribution and stress-reinjection images. RESULTS: On visual analysis, 344 of 688 segments (50%) had abnormal perfusion. Fifty two (15%) had moderate perfusion defects and 292 (85%) had severe perfusion defects on stress image. Of 292 severe stress defects, 53 were irreversible on redistribution and reversible on reinjection images, and 15 were reversible on redistribution and irreversible on reinjection images. Two hundred twenty four of 292 segments (76.7%) showed concordant results on stress-redistribution and stress-reinjection images. Therefore 24 hour reinjection image changed viability status from necrotic to viable in 53 segments of 292 severe stress defect (18%). However, myocardial viability was underestimated in only 5% (15/292) of severe defects by 24 hour reinjection. CONCLUSION: The 24 hour reinjection imaging is useful in the assessment of rnyocardial viability. It is more sensitive than 4 hour redistribution imaging. However, both redistribution and reinjection images are needed since they complement each other.
