Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2000 Nov-Dec;43(3):231-44.

Stress nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging versus stress echocardiography: prognostic comparisons.

Author information

1
Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, USA.

Abstract

The use of noninvasive stress cardiac imaging for stratifying risk in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease is growing as a tool for identification of the subgroup most likely to benefit from the expense and risk of more invasive procedures, including cardiac catheterization and coronary revascularization. In this setting, it is especially important that a test be able to identify patients with sufficiently low risk that clinicians are comfortable in deferring such interventions, especially in those with other markers of increased risk. Previous data have shown that cardiac risk is most closely related to the presence and extent of jeopardized viable myocardium on noninvasive stress cardiac imaging. Although stress echocardiography may have comparable ability to detect coronary artery disease, current data suggest that stress echocardiography detects significantly less jeopardized viable myocardium than stress nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging and consequently fewer patients at risk for cardiac events. Stress nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging may therefore have important advantages for risk stratification and the direction of future care of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.

PMID:
11153510
DOI:
10.1053/pcad.2000.19314
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center