Comparison of Electromechanical NOGA Mapping with Different Myocardial Imaging Methods
| Reference | No. of patients | Reference methods | EF method | EF baseline/EF follow-up | Sens (%) | Spec (%) | UpV threshold (mV) | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kornowski et al. (15) | 18 | 201Tl rest, 99mTc stress | — | — | — | — | — | UpV and LLS highest in normal segments, mild reduction in reversible segments, lowest in scar |
| Fuchs et al. (14) | 61 | 201Tl rest, 99mTc stress | 48 ± 11 | 90 | 90 | 5.4 | Stress-induced ischemia: UpV threshold, 9.0 mV; Sens, 68%; Spec, 67%; LLS less sensitive and specific than UpV | |
| — | ||||||||
| Gyöngyösi et al. (13) | 32 | 201Tl | Catheter | 40 ± 8 | 82 | 82 | 6.4 | Only weak correlation between 201Tl and LLS |
| — | ||||||||
| Botker et al. (16) | 31 | 13N-NH3, 18F-FDG, 3D Echo | Echo | 30 ± 9 | 69 | 69 | 6.5 | LLS: no difference between normal and dysfunctional myocardium |
| — | ||||||||
| Koch et al. (17) | 46 | 18F-FDG, 99mTc | Catheter | 52 ± 16 | 77 | 75 | 7.5 | Regional wall motion increased in “infarct” areas when |
| 62 ± 13 | UpV > 7.5 mV; no additional information from LLS | |||||||
| Keck et al. (18) | 51 | 18F-FDG, 99mTc rest and stress | Echo | 51 ± 14 | 65 | 90 | 4.5 | Stress perfusion: UpV in reversible segments not different from normal. LLS cannot predict recovery but differentiates between normal, hypokinetic myocardium and scar tissue |
| — | ||||||||
| Wiggers et al. (19) | 20 | 18F-FDG, 99mTc | Echo or MRI | 29 ± 6 | 59* | 59* | 8.4* | Recovery of LV function more predictable by PET or SPECT than by UpV in dysfunctional myocardium. LLS: no difference in reversibly and irreversibly dysfunctional regions |
| 34 ± 13 | ||||||||
| Perin et al. (20) | 15 | MRI | — | — | 93 | 88 | 6.9 | Subendocardial scar: UpV threshold, 7.9 mV; Sens, 88%; Spec, 88% |
| This study | 21 | 18F-FDG, 201Tl | Catheter | 49 ± 17 | 85 | 85 | 5.2 | UpV in hypoperfused myocardium is more closely related to 18F-FDG PET than to SPECT myocardial perfusion, especially in perfusion/metabolism mismatch |
| — |
↵* Distinction between reversible and irreversible dysfunction; all other values for sensitivity and specificity distinction are between viable myocardium and scar tissue.
EF = LV ejection fraction (%); Sens = sensitivity; Spec = specificity; 99mTc = 99mTc-sestamibi; Catheter = center-line method from digitized angiograms; Echo = echocardiography; 3D = 3-dimensional.