English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with ST elevation, early reperfusion therapy with either direct percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolytic agents significantly reduces mortality. The decline in mortality is partially related to a reduction in infarct size. Myocardial perfusion imaging can be utilized in these patients to measure both myocardium at risk (MAR) when a patient first arrives in the emergency department and final infarct size several days later. The difference between MAR and final infarct size represents ‘‘myocardial salvage.’’ Dividing the amount of myocardial salvage by the amount of MAR provides a ‘‘salvage index.’’ Early studies in the 1980s that measured infarct size and myocardial salvage used thallium (Tl)-201. The subsequent introduction of technetium (Tc)-based perfusion radioisotopes facilitated this process, especially for measuring MAR. In contrast to Tl-201, Tc-99m undergoes minimal redistribution over time, permitting a delayed image acquisition several hours after injection, and after administration of reperfusion therapy, that still reflects myocardial perfusion at the time of injection in the emergency department. Another advantage of Tc-99m over Tl-201 is its higher peak energy window, which permits more accurate identification of the boundaries of a perfusion defect and increases the accuracy of gated images. Infarct size and myocardial salvage have been extensively validated as surrogate endpoints for mortality in the setting of AMI. Although these measurements are not routinely made clinically, they have been applied as endpoints in over 30 AMI trials comparing different therapeutic strategies or examining the efficacy of novel agents or devices. Infarct size alone has been used as the endpoint in the majority of these trials, and particularly the more recent ones, since it is logistically easier. Patients only need to undergo one imaging study more than 120 hours (5 days) after reperfusion therapy when they are clinically stable. In contrast, the measurement of myocardial salvage requires an early imaging study to determine MAR. Although the intravenous injection of a dose of Tc-99m sestamibi in the emergency department is not difficult, a supply of Tc-99m sestamibi must be readily available (the isotope must be prepared every 6 hours by a technologist to comply with the package insert), and imaging needs to generally be performed within 6 hours of injection. Many hospitals have been unable to meet these requirements. What are the advantages of measuring myocardial salvage rather than measuring infarct size alone? The use of myocardial salvage rather than infarct size as an endpoint in clinical trials should permit a smaller patient sample size. However, the difference in sample size is more modest than expected, as each parameter has a similar relationship between its variability (expressed as the standard deviation) and the expected difference with treatment. As a result, several positive clinical trials have reported similar results for both myocardial salvage and infarct size. The gain in statistical power with the measurement of MAR is best achieved with an analysis of covariance. Another advantage of measuring salvage is the insight that it provides into treatment efficacy in an individual patient. Studies in animals and humans have demonstrated that the amount of MAR can vary widely, even for a coronary artery occlusion in the same territory. Two patients may both have final infarct size of 20%, but in one patient MAR may have been 60%, whereas in the other patient MAR may have been 20%. Measuring salvage provides knowledge of treatment efficacy in these two patients that would not be available from measurement of infarct size alone. In this issue of the Journal, Sciagra et al describe a novel approach for the measurement of MAR. These investigators take advantage of the concept of myocardial stunning to estimate MAR from the extent of myocardium with impaired regional wall thickening on a gated SPECT Tc-99m sestamibi image performed at an average of 5 days post-AMI. In 36 patients with first From the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Reprint requests: Todd D. Miller, MD, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN 55905; miller.todd@mayo.edu. J Nucl Cardiol 2010;17:778–80. 1071-3581/$34.00 Copyright 2010 American Society of Nuclear Cardiology. doi:10.1007/s12350-010-9278-3

Measuring myocardium at risk in acute myocardial infarction—A continuing challenge