Prognostic value of gated SPECT in patients with left bundle branch block
Journal of Nuclear Cardiology , Volume 14 - Issue 1 p. 75- 81
Background: The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of quantitative gated technetium 99m tetrofosmin single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Methods and Results: We followed up 101 consecutive patients with LBBB using Tc-99m tetrofosmin gated SPECT imaging. The mean follow-up was 1.24 years (maximum, 2.48 years). Hard endpoints were all-cause death and acute myocardial infarction. Event-free survival curves were obtained. Optimal cutoff points for left ventricular (LV) volumes and LV ejection fraction (EF) to predict outcome were determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Of the patients, 94 had an abnormal study. Fifteen hard events occurred (thirteen deaths). Perfusion abnormalities were similar for patients with or without events. For LV function parameters, the survival curves were maximally separated when we used cutoff values of 160 mL or greater for end-diastolic volume (P = .019 and hazard ratio [HR] of 1.04 for hard events, P = .024 and HR of 1.04 for all-cause death), 100 mL or greater for end-systolic volume (P = .043 and HR of 1.04 for hard events, P = .062 and HR of 1.04 for all-cause death), and lower than 35% for LVEF (P = .013 and HR of 0.81 for hard events, P = .047 and HR of 0.81 for all-cause death). Conclusion: By use of quantitative gated SPECT imaging, LBBB patients with an end-diastolic volume of 160 mL or greater, end-systolic volume of 100 mL or greater, or LVEF lower than 35% are at increased risk for subsequent cardiac events.
|Left bundle branch block, gated single photon emission computed tomography, prognosis|
|Journal of Nuclear Cardiology|
|Organisation||Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam|
America, Y.G.C.J, Bax, J.J, Boersma, H, Stokkel, M, & van der Wall, E.E. (2007). Prognostic value of gated SPECT in patients with left bundle branch block. Journal of Nuclear Cardiology, 14(1), 75–81. doi:10.1016/j.nuclcard.2006.10.018