Journal of Nuclear Cardiology

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 496–505 | Cite as

Assessment of the fate of myocardial necrosis by serial myocardial perfusion imaging

  • Francesco Nudi
  • Natale Di Belardino
  • Annamaria Pinto
  • Enrica Procaccini
  • Giandomenico Neri
  • Orazio Schillaci
  • Fabrizio Tomai
  • Giacomo Frati
  • Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai
Original Article



Myocardial necrosis after myocardial infarction (MI) is common; extent and severity are however variable. The pattern is recognized by myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) as fixed perfusion defects (FPD). The fate of such FPD is not well appraised. This study addressed this important issue in a large number of patients undergoing serial MPI in relation to type of intervening therapy.


Patients with prior MI or MPI-evidence of myocardial necrosis undergoing serial MPI without intervening acute coronary syndromes were included. The fate of necrosis by MPI on per-patient and per-region analysis was analyzed, factoring also the impact of intervening coronary revascularization (CR).


A total of 3691 patients with 25,837 regions were identified, including 1413 (38.3%) subjects with 3358 (13.0%) regions exhibiting necrosis. Serial MPI after 29±21 months confirmed the persistent presence of myocardial necrosis FPD in the vast majority of patients and regions (86%); the consistency was even higher in the presence of moderate or severe necrosis (99%). Neither type nor site of CR significantly impacted on the presence and extent of myocardial necrosis at multivariable analysis.


The finding of myocardial necrosis by MPI remains highly consistent over time, and is not significantly altered by CR.


Coronary artery disease myocardial infarction myocardial necrosis myocardial perfusion imaging 



Acute coronary syndromes


Coronary artery bypass grafting


Coronary artery disease


Coronary revascularization


Left anterior descending


Left ventricle


Left ventricular ejection fraction


Myocardial infarction


Myocardial perfusion imaging


Percutaneous coronary intervention



This work was supported by Etisan, Rome, Italy.

Supplementary material

12350_2016_751_MOESM1_ESM.docx (45 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 44 kb)


  1. 1.
    White HD, Chew DP. Acute myocardial infarction. Lancet. 2008;372:570–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lim SP, Mc Ardle BA, Beanlands RS, Hessian RC. Myocardial viability: It is still alive. Semin Nucl Med. 2014;44:358–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jivraj N, Phinikaridou A, Shah AM, Botnar RM. Molecular imaging of myocardial infarction. Basic Res Cardiol. 2014;109:397.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allman KC, Shaw LJ, Hachamovitch R, Udelson JE. Myocardial viability testing and impact of revascularization on prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: A meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:1151–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonow RO, Maurer G, Lee KL, Holly TA, Binkley PF, Desvigne-Nickens P, Drozdz J, Farsky PS, Feldman AM, Doenst T, Michler RE, Berman DS, Nicolau JC, Pellikka PA, Wrobel K, Alotti N, Asch FM, Favaloro LE, She L, Velazquez EJ, Jones RH. Panza JA; STICH Trial Investigators. Myocardial viability and survival in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1617–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Jones RH, Al-Khalidi HR, Hill JA, Panza JA, Michler RE, Bonow RO, Doenst T, Petrie MC, Oh JK, She L, Moore VL, Desvigne-Nickens P, Sopko G. Rouleau JL; STICHES investigators. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1511–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buckberg GD, Athanasuleas CL, Wechsler AS, Beyersdorf F, Conte JV, Strobeck JE. The STICH trial unravelled. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010;12:1024–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nudi F, Pinto A, Procaccini E, Neri G, Vetere M, Tomai F, Gaspardone A, Biondi-Zoccai G, Schillaci O. A novel clinically relevant segmentation method and corresponding maximal ischemia score to risk-stratify patients undergoing myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. J Nucl Cardiol. 2014;21:807–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nudi F, Neri G, Schillaci O, Pinto A, Procaccini E, Vetere M, Tomai F, Frati G, Biondi-Zoccai G. Time to and risk of cardiac events after myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. J Cardiol. 2015;66:125–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nudi F, Schillaci O, Neri G, Pinto A, Procaccini E, Vetere M, Frati G, Tomai F, Biondi-Zoccai G. Prognostic impact of location and extent of vessel-related ischemia at myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in patients with or at risk for coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016;23:274–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Biondi-Zoccai G, Pinto AM, Versaci F, Procaccini E, Neri G, Sesti G, Uccioli L, Vetere M, Peruzzi M, Nudi F. Comparative impact of hypoglycemic agents on severity and extent of myocardial ischemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus undergoing myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2016;68:162–70.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nudi F, Di Belardino N, Versaci F, Pinto A, Procaccini E, Neri G, Vetere M, Frati G, Peruzzi M, Schillaci O, Gaspardone A, Tomai F, Biondi-Zoccai G. Impact of coronary revascularization versus medical therapy on ischemia among stable patients with or suspected coronary artery disease undergoing serial myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. J Nucl Cardiol. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s12350-016-0504-5.
  13. 13.
    Frangogiannis NG. Pathophysiology of Myocardial Infarction. Compr Physiol. 2015;5:1841–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Beanlands RS, Nichol G, Huszti E, Humen D, Racine N, Freeman M, Gulenchyn KY, Garrard L, deKemp R, Guo A, Ruddy TD, Benard F, Lamy A. Iwanochko RM; PARR-2 Investigators. F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging-assisted management of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and suspected coronary disease: A randomized, controlled trial (PARR-2). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:2002–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Biondi-Zoccai G, Romagnoli E, Agostoni P, Capodanno D, Castagno D, D’Ascenzo F, Sangiorgi G, Modena MG. Are propensity scores really superior to standard multivariable analysis? Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32:731–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gibbons RJ, Miller TD. Tc-99m sestamibi infarct size as a surrogate endpoint. J Nucl Cardiol. 2005;12:12–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ibrahim T, Bülow HP, Hackl T, Hörnke M, Nekolla SG, Breuer M, Schömig A, Schwaiger M. Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and single-photon emission computed tomography for detection of myocardial necrosis early after acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:208–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Nuclear Cardiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Nudi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Natale Di Belardino
    • 3
  • Annamaria Pinto
    • 1
    • 4
  • Enrica Procaccini
    • 1
    • 4
  • Giandomenico Neri
    • 1
    • 4
  • Orazio Schillaci
    • 5
  • Fabrizio Tomai
    • 6
  • Giacomo Frati
    • 7
    • 8
  • Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai
    • 7
    • 8
  1. 1.Service of Nuclear CardiologyMadonna della Fiducia ClinicRomeItaly
  2. 2.ETISANRomeItaly
  3. 3.Division of CardiologyAnzio-Nettuno HospitalAnzioItaly
  4. 4.Service of Anatomo Functional Cardio ImagingOstia RadiologicaRomeItaly
  5. 5.Department of Nuclear MedicineTor Vergata University of RomeRomeItaly
  6. 6.Division of CardiologyEuropean HospitalRomeItaly
  7. 7.Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and BiotechnologiesSapienza University of RomeLatinaItaly
  8. 8.Department of AngioCardioNeurologyIRCCS NeuromedPozzilliItaly

Personalised recommendations