Advertisement

Diagnostic Tools to Approach the Cardiac Patient

  • João V. Vitola
  • Dominique Delbeke

Abstract

It has been an exciting era for those working in the fields of cardiology and cardiac imaging. In the last few decades, numerous technological advances have provided innovative diagnostic tools for better identification and measurement of the extent of disease. A succession of new therapies for treating cardiac disease has impacted both cardiac morbidity and mortality. These new therapies include carvedilol, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, statins, and a new generation of stents, to mention just a few. In this text, the value of nuclear imaging is discussed in the context of other correlative imaging techniques to diagnose cardiac disease, to monitor the effects of therapy, and to better stratify patients into different risk categories for cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Ultimately, the optimal integration of nuclear imaging with the other diagnostic modalities will allow the most accurate identification of patients who may benefit from more aggressive treatments, such as myocardial revascularization or heart transplantation.

Keywords

Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Nuclear Cardiology Nuclear Imaging Pretest Probability Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dublin LI, Lorka LI, Spiegelman M. Length of Life: A Study of the Life of the Life Table New York: Ronald Press; 1949.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batchelor WB, Jollis JG, Friesinger GC. The challenge of health care delivery to the elderly patient with cardiovascular disease. Cardiology Clinics 1999; 17 (1): 1–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stary HC (ed). Atlas of Atherosclerosis: Progression and Regression. New York: Parthenon Publishing;1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burke AP, Farb A, Kolodgie FD, et al. Atherosclerotic plaque morphology and coronary thrombi. J Nucl Cardiol 2002; 9: 95–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gould KL, Lipscomb K, Hamilton GW. Physiologic basis for assessing critical coronary steno-sis. Instantaneous flow response and regional distribution during coronary hyperemia as measures of coronary flow reserve. Am J Cardiol 1974; 33: 87–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dilsizian V, Bonow RO. Current diagnostic techniques of assessing myocardial viability in patients with hibernating and stunned myocardium. Circulation 1993; 87: 1–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Little WC, Constantinescu M, Applegate RJ, et al. Can coronary angiography predict the site of a subsequent myocardial infarction in patients with mild to moderate coronary artery disease? Circulation 1988; 78: 1157–1166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ambrose JA, Fuster V. The risk of coronary occlusion is not proportional to the prior severity of coronary stenoses. Heart 1998; 79: 3–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fuster V, Stein B, Ambrose JA, et al. Atherosclerotic plaque rupture and thrombosis. Evolving concept. Circulation. 1990;82(3 Suppl):1147–1159.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Einthoven W. Weiteres uber das electrokardiogramm. Arch Ges Physiol 1908; 172: 517.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gibbons RJ, Antman EM, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guidelines update for exercise testing.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lauer MS, Mehta R, Pashkow FJ, et al. Association of chronotropic incompetence with echocardiographic ischemia and prognosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32: 1280–1286.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gianrossi R, Detrano R, Mulvihill D, et al. Exercise-induced ST depression in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Circulation 1989; 80: 87–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Detrano R, Gianrossi R, Froelicker V. The diagnostic accuracy of the exercise electrocardiogram: a meta-analysis of 22 years of research. Prog Cardiovasc 1989; 32: 173–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller TD, Roger VL, Milavetz JJ, et al. Assessment of the exercise electrocardiogram in women versus men using tomographic myocardial perfusion imaging as the reference standard. Am J Cardiol 2001; 87: 868–873.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kwok Y, Kim C, Grady D, et al. Analysis of exercise testing to detect coronary artery disease in women. Am J Cardiol 1999; 83: 660–666.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morise AP, Dalal JN, Duval RD. Value of a simple measure of estrogen status for improving the diagnosis of coronary artery disease in women. Am J Med 1993; 94: 491–496.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Verani MS. Myocardial perfusion imaging versus two-dimensional echocardiography: comparative value in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol 1994; 1: 399–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ehlendy A, Bax JJ, Poldermans D. Dobutamine stress myocardial perfusion imaging in coronary artery disease. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1634–1646.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Corti R, Osende JI, Fayad ZA, et al. In vivo noninvasive detection and age definition of arterial thrombus by MRI. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39: 1366–1376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Helft G, Worthley SG, Fuster V, et al. Progression and regression of atherosclerotic lesions: monitoring with serial noninvasive magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation 2002; 105: 993–998.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hartiala J, Sakuma H, Higgins CB. Magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy of the human heart. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1993; 53: 425–437.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kim WY, Danias PG, Stuber M, et al. Coronary magnetic resonance angiography for the detection of coronary stenosis. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1863–1869.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    O’Rourke RA, Brundage BH, Froelicke VF, et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Expert consensus document on electron beam computed tomography for the diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 326–340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Rourke RA, Brundage BH, Froelicke VF, et al. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Expert consensus document on electron beam computed tomography for the diagnosis and prognosis of coronary artery disease. Circulation 2000; 102: 126–159.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zaret BL, Wackers FJ. Nuclear cardiology, part 1. N E ngl J Med 1993; 329: 775–783.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zaret BL, Wackers FJ. Nuclear cardiology, part 2. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 855–863.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ritchie JL, Cheitlin MD, Garson A, et al. Guidelines for clinical use of cardiac radionuclide imaging: Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on assessment of diagnostic and therapeutic cardiovascular procedures (Committee on Radionuclide Imaging), developed in collaboration with the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;25(2):521–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berman DS, Hayes SW, Germano G. Assessment of myocardial perfusion and viability with technetium-99m perfusion agents. In DePuey EG, Garcia EV, Berman DS (eds). Cardiac SPECT Imaging Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001: 179–210.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iskandrian AS, Heo J, Kong B, Lyons E, Marsch S. Use of technetium-99m isonitrile (RP-30A) in assessing left ventricular perfusion and function at rest and during exercise in coronary artery disease, and comparison with coronary arteriography and exercise 201Tl SPECT imaging. Am J Cardiol 1989; 64: 270–275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brown KA. Prognostic value of 201Tl myocardial perfusion imaging. Circulation 1991; 83: 363–381.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Christian TF, Schwartz RS, Gibbons RJ. Determinants of infarct size in reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1992; 89: 81–90.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bateman TM, Berman DS, Heller GV, et al. American Society of Nuclear Cardiology position statement on electrocardiographic gating of myocardial perfusion SPECT scintigrams. J Nucl Cardiol 1999; 6: 470–471.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Johnson LL,Tauxe EL. Radionuclide assessment of ventricular function. Curr Probl Cardiol 1994; 19: 590–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    DePuey EG, Port S, Wackers FJ, et al. Nonperfusion applications in nuclear cardiology: Report of a task force of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. J Nucl Cardiol 1998; 5: 218–231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    DePuey EG, Garcia EV. Updated imaging guidelines for nuclear cardiology procedures. J Nucl Cardiol 2001; 8: G1–58.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ritchie JL, Gibbons RJ, Johnson LL, et al. Task force 5: Training in nuclear cardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995; 25: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Deman P, Eckdahl J, Folks R, et al. Guidelines for technologist training in nuclear cardiology. J Nucl Cardiol 1997; 4: 422–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 1979; 300: 1350–1358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hamilton GW, Trobaugh G, Richie JC, et al. Myocardial imaging with 201Tl: an analysis of clinical usefulness based on Bayes’ theorem. Semin Nucl Med 1978; 8: 358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Uhl GS, Kay TN, Hickman JR Jr. Computer-enhanced thallium scintigram in asymptomatic men with abnormal exercise tests. Am J Cardiol 1981; 101: 657–666.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Uhl GS, Kay TN, Hickman JR Jr, et al. Detection of coronary artery disease in asymptomatic aircrew members with thallium-201 scintigraphy. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1980;51:1250–1255.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Verani MS. Myocardial perfusion imaging versus two-dimensional echocardiography: Comparative value in the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. J Nucl Cardiol 1994; 1: 399–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Melin JA, Piret LJ, Vanbutsele RJ, et al. Diagnostic value of exercise electrocardiography and thallium myocardial scintigraphy in patients without previous myocardial infarction: A Bayesian approach. Circulation 1981; 63: 1019–1024.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Melin JA, Wijns W, Vanbutsele RJ, et al. Alternative diagnostic strategies for coronary artery disease in women: demonstration of the usefulness and efficiency of probability analysis. Circulation 1985; 71: 535–542.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lederman RJ, Raylman RR, Fisher SJ, et al. Detection of atherosclerosis using a novel positron-sensitive probe and 18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Nucl Med Commun. 2001;22:747–753.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yun M, Yeh D, Araujo LI, et al. F-18 FDG uptake in the large arteries: A new observation. Clin Nucl Med. 2001; 26: 314–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Yun M, Jang S, Cucchiara A, et al. 18F FDG uptake in the large arteries: A correlation study with the atherogenic risk factors. Semin Nucl Med 2002; 32: 70–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Meller J, Grabbe E, Becker W, Vosshenrich R. Value of F-18 FDG hybrid camera PET and MRI in early Takayasu aortitis. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 400–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hara M, Goodman PC, Leder RA. FDG PET finding in early-phase Takayasu arteritis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999; 23: 16–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rudd JH, Warburton EA, Fryer TD, et al. Imaging atherosclerotic plaque inflammation with [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Circulation 2002; 105: 2708–2711.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, LLC 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • João V. Vitola
  • Dominique Delbeke

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations