A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Relative Prognostic Significance of Positron Emission Tomography Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Markers in Cardiomyopathy. | LitMetric

Background: Rubidium-82 positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging provides measurements of perfusion, myocardial blood flow and reserve (MBFR), and changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at rest and peak stress. Although all of these variables are known to provide prognostic information, they have not been well studied in patients with heart failure due to reduced LVEF.

Methods: Between 2010 and 2016, 1255 consecutive unique patients with LVEF≤40% were included in this study who underwent rubidium-82 positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging and did not have subsequent revascularization within 90 days. Perfusion assessment was scored semiquantitatively, and LVEF reserve (stress-rest LVEF) and global MBFR (stress/rest MBF) were quantified using automated software. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for 14 clinical and 7 test characteristics were used to define the independent prognostic significance of MBFR on all-cause mortality.

Results: Of 1255 patients followed for a mean of 3.2 years, 454 (36.2%) died. After adjusting for clinical variables, the magnitude of fixed and reversible perfusion defects was prognostic of death (=0.02 and 0.01, respectively), while the rest LVEF was not (=0.18). The addition of LVEF reserve did not add any incremental value, while the addition of MBFR revealed incremental prognostic value (hazard ratio per 0.1 unit decrease in MBFR=1.08 [95% CI, 1.05-1.11], <0.001) with fixed and reversible defects becoming nonsignificant (=0.07 and 0.29, respectively). There was no interaction between MBFR and cause of cardiomyopathy (ischemic versus nonischemic).

Conclusions: In patients with a known cardiomyopathy who did not require early revascularization, reduced MBFR as obtained by positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging is associated with all-cause mortality while other positron emission tomography myocardial perfusion imaging measures were not.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8555447PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.121.012426DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

positron emission
12
emission tomography
12
tomography myocardial
12
myocardial perfusion
12
perfusion imaging
12
prognostic significance
8
rubidium-82 positron
8
lvef reserve
8
perfusion
6
lvef
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!