Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Cardiol. 1996 Aug 15;78(4):415-9.

Comparison of dobutamine transesophageal echocardiography and dobutamine magnetic resonance imaging for detection of residual myocardial viability.

Author information

Klinik III für Innere Medizin, Universität zu Köln, Germany.


A dobutamine-induced contraction reserve in akinetic but viable myocardium, observed by echocardiography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), is a reliable indicator of myocardial viability. However, the comparative diagnostic accuracy of these 2 techniques is unknown. Therefore, 43 patients with myocardial infarction (infarct age > or = 4 months) and regional akinesia underwent dobutamine transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and dobutamine MRI (10 microg dobutamine/ min/kg). Both imaging techniques were compared with the reference standard 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET). An infarct region was considered viable if a dobutamine contraction reserve could be assessed visually by TEE or quantitatively by MRI in > or = 50% of segments graded "a" or dyskinetic at rest. Infarct regions were graded viable by PET if FDG uptake was > or = 50% of the maximal FDG uptake in a region with normal wall motion by left ventriculography. A dobutamine contraction reserve was found in 21 of 43 patients (49%) by TEE and MRI. A viable infarct region by FDG PET was diagnosed in 26 of 43 patients (60%). FDG uptake and dobutamine TEE were concordant in 36 of 43 patients (84%) and dobutamine MRI and FDG PET were concordant in 38 of 43 patients (88%). Sensitivity and specificity of dobutamine TEE and dobutamine MRI for FDG PET-defined myocardial viability were 77% versus 81% and 94% versus 100%, respectively. Both imaging techniques yielded similar results for the detection of myocardial viability as defined by FDG uptake, with a slightly higher sensitivity and specificity for the quantitatively evaluated dobutamine contraction reserve by MRI.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center