• J. Nucl. Med. · Mar 2012

    PET/CT assessment of symptomatic individuals with obstructive and nonobstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

    • Paco E Bravo, Aurélio Pinheiro, Takahiro Higuchi, Christoph Rischpler, Jennifer Merrill, Miguel Santaularia-Tomas, M Roselle Abraham, Richard L Wahl, Theodore P Abraham, and Frank M Bengel.
    • Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. pbravov1@jhmi.edu
    • J. Nucl. Med. 2012 Mar 1; 53 (3): 407-14.

    UnlabelledPatients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) exhibit elevated left ventricular outflow tract gradients (LVOTGs) and appear to have a worse prognosis than those with nonobstructive HCM. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients with obstruction, compared with nonobstructive HCM, demonstrate significant differences in PET parameters of microvascular function.MethodsPET was performed in 33 symptomatic HCM patients at rest and during dipyridamole stress (peak) for the assessment of regional myocardial perfusion (rMP), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), myocardial blood flow (MBF), and myocardial flow reserve (MFR). Myocardial wall thickness and LVOTG were measured with an echocardiogram. Patients were divided into the following 3 groups: nonobstructive (LVOTG < 30 mm Hg at rest and after provocation test with amyl nitrite), obstructive (LVOTG ≥ 30 mm Hg at rest and with provocation), and latent HCM (LVOTG < 30 at rest but ≥ 30 mm Hg with provocation).ResultsEleven patients were classified as nonobstructive (group 1), 12 as obstructive (group 2), and 10 as latent HCM (group 3). Except for age (42 ± 18 y for group 1, 58 ± 7 y for group 2, and 58 ± 12 y for group 3; P = 0.01), all 3 groups had similar baseline characteristics, including maximal wall thickness (2.3 ± 0.5 cm for group 1, 2.2 ± 0.4 cm for group 2, and 2.1 ± 0.7 cm for group 3; P = 0.7). During peak flow, most patients in groups 1 and 2, but fewer in group 3, exhibited rMP defects (73% for group 1, 100% for group 2, and 40% for group 3; P = 0.007) and a drop in LVEF (73% for group 1, 92% for group 2, and 50% for group 3; P = 0.09). Peak MBF (1.58 ± 0.49 mL/min/g for group 1, 1.72 ± 0.46 mL/min/g for group 2, and 1.97 ± 0.32 mL/min/g for group 3; P = 0.14) and MFR (1.62 ± 0.57 for group 1, 1.90 ± 0.31 for group 2, and 2.27 ± 0.51 for group 3; P = 0.01) were lower in the nonobstructive and higher in the latent HCM group. LVOTGs demonstrated no significant correlation with any flow dynamics. In a multivariate regression analysis, maximal wall thickness was the only significant predictor for reduced peak MBF (β = -0.45, P = 0.003) and MFR (β = -0.63, P = 0.0001).ConclusionMaximal wall thickness was identified as the strongest predictor of impaired dipyridamole-induced hyperemia and flow reserve in our study, whereas outflow tract obstruction was not an independent determinant.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.