To assess the clinical significance of radionuclide techniques in evaluating dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (CAD CM) Methods 28 patients with DCM and 55 patients with CAD CM were studied...To assess the clinical significance of radionuclide techniques in evaluating dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (CAD CM) Methods 28 patients with DCM and 55 patients with CAD CM were studied All patients underwent 99m Tc MIBI myocardial perfusion SPECT and 18 F FDG myocardial metabolic PET 78 patients had 99m Tc RBC radionuclide ventriculography and 68 patients had coronary angiography Results The results of 23 patients (82%) with DCM showed mild and non segmental distribution perfusion abnormalities 52 patients with CAD CM (95%) showed perfusion abnormalities that distributed along the coronary vessel territories Significant perfusion defects were found in 4 patients with DCM (14%) and 45 patients with CAD CM (82%) ( P <0 01) The average perfusion score was 4 5±2 6 in DCM and 9 6±2 5 in CAD CM and the area of diminished perfusion was significantly smaller in DCM than in CAD CM ( P <0 001) Two patients with DCM and 18 patients with CAD CM had metabolic defects The patterns of perfusion/metabolic imaging showed mismatch in most patients with CAD CM but match in most patients with DCM The LVEF in patients with DCM and CAD CM was both decreased but the decreases were not statistically different between DCM and CAD CM The RVEF in patients with DCM was significantly lower than that in patients with CAD CM (32 4%±13 9% vs 40 9%±15 4%, P<0 05) Conclusion The radionuclide techniques are helpful for distinguishing DCM from CAD CM The segmental perfusion abnormality and RVEF are the most important factors for differentiation of DCM from CAD CM展开更多
文摘To assess the clinical significance of radionuclide techniques in evaluating dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (CAD CM) Methods 28 patients with DCM and 55 patients with CAD CM were studied All patients underwent 99m Tc MIBI myocardial perfusion SPECT and 18 F FDG myocardial metabolic PET 78 patients had 99m Tc RBC radionuclide ventriculography and 68 patients had coronary angiography Results The results of 23 patients (82%) with DCM showed mild and non segmental distribution perfusion abnormalities 52 patients with CAD CM (95%) showed perfusion abnormalities that distributed along the coronary vessel territories Significant perfusion defects were found in 4 patients with DCM (14%) and 45 patients with CAD CM (82%) ( P <0 01) The average perfusion score was 4 5±2 6 in DCM and 9 6±2 5 in CAD CM and the area of diminished perfusion was significantly smaller in DCM than in CAD CM ( P <0 001) Two patients with DCM and 18 patients with CAD CM had metabolic defects The patterns of perfusion/metabolic imaging showed mismatch in most patients with CAD CM but match in most patients with DCM The LVEF in patients with DCM and CAD CM was both decreased but the decreases were not statistically different between DCM and CAD CM The RVEF in patients with DCM was significantly lower than that in patients with CAD CM (32 4%±13 9% vs 40 9%±15 4%, P<0 05) Conclusion The radionuclide techniques are helpful for distinguishing DCM from CAD CM The segmental perfusion abnormality and RVEF are the most important factors for differentiation of DCM from CAD CM
