Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 25, 2026

Comprehensive Echocardiographic Assessment of Right Ventricle Function in a Rat Model of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Published on: January 20, 2023
PET/CT assessment of symptomatic individuals with obstructive and nonobstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Paco E Bravo1, Aurélio Pinheiro, Takahiro Higuchi
1Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. pbravov1@jhmi.edu
Insights
Maximal wall thickness, not outflow tract obstruction, is the key predictor of impaired microvascular function in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). This finding impacts understanding of HCM prognosis and treatment strategies.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Cardiovascular Imaging
- Nuclear Cardiology
Background:
- Obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is associated with worse prognosis compared to non-obstructive HCM.
- Left ventricular outflow tract gradients (LVOTGs) are elevated in obstructive HCM.
- Microvascular function in HCM requires further investigation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare PET-derived microvascular function parameters between obstructive and non-obstructive HCM.
- To determine predictors of impaired myocardial blood flow and flow reserve in HCM patients.
Main Methods:
- Positron Emission Tomography (PET) assessed myocardial perfusion, blood flow (MBF), and flow reserve (MFR) at rest and during dipyridamole stress.
- Patients were categorized into non-obstructive, obstructive, and latent HCM groups based on LVOTG.
- Echocardiography measured myocardial wall thickness and LVOTG.
Main Results:
- Maximal wall thickness was the strongest predictor of reduced peak MBF and MFR (P < 0.0001).
- Outflow tract obstruction (LVOTG) did not independently predict impaired flow dynamics.
- Regional myocardial perfusion defects and reduced LVEF were more common in obstructive and non-obstructive groups during peak stress.
Conclusions:
- Maximal wall thickness is the primary determinant of impaired dipyridamole-induced hyperemia and MFR in HCM.
- Outflow tract obstruction is not an independent predictor of microvascular dysfunction in this cohort.
- These findings highlight the importance of myocardial hypertrophy in HCM pathophysiology.
Unlabelled:
Patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) exhibit elevated left ventricular outflow tract gradients (LVOTGs) and appear to have a worse prognosis than those with nonobstructive HCM. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients with obstruction, compared with nonobstructive HCM, demonstrate significant differences in PET parameters of microvascular function.
Methods:
PET was performed in 33 symptomatic HCM patients at rest and during dipyridamole stress (peak) for the assessment of regional myocardial perfusion (rMP), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), myocardial blood flow (MBF), and myocardial flow reserve (MFR). Myocardial wall thickness and LVOTG were measured with an echocardiogram. Patients were divided into the following 3 groups: nonobstructive (LVOTG < 30 mm Hg at rest and after provocation test with amyl nitrite), obstructive (LVOTG ≥ 30 mm Hg at rest and with provocation), and latent HCM (LVOTG < 30 at rest but ≥ 30 mm Hg with provocation).
Results:
Eleven patients were classified as nonobstructive (group 1), 12 as obstructive (group 2), and 10 as latent HCM (group 3). Except for age (42 ± 18 y for group 1, 58 ± 7 y for group 2, and 58 ± 12 y for group 3; P = 0.01), all 3 groups had similar baseline characteristics, including maximal wall thickness (2.3 ± 0.5 cm for group 1, 2.2 ± 0.4 cm for group 2, and 2.1 ± 0.7 cm for group 3; P = 0.7). During peak flow, most patients in groups 1 and 2, but fewer in group 3, exhibited rMP defects (73% for group 1, 100% for group 2, and 40% for group 3; P = 0.007) and a drop in LVEF (73% for group 1, 92% for group 2, and 50% for group 3; P = 0.09). Peak MBF (1.58 ± 0.49 mL/min/g for group 1, 1.72 ± 0.46 mL/min/g for group 2, and 1.97 ± 0.32 mL/min/g for group 3; P = 0.14) and MFR (1.62 ± 0.57 for group 1, 1.90 ± 0.31 for group 2, and 2.27 ± 0.51 for group 3; P = 0.01) were lower in the nonobstructive and higher in the latent HCM group. LVOTGs demonstrated no significant correlation with any flow dynamics. In a multivariate regression analysis, maximal wall thickness was the only significant predictor for reduced peak MBF (β = -0.45, P = 0.003) and MFR (β = -0.63, P = 0.0001).
Conclusion:
Maximal wall thickness was identified as the strongest predictor of impaired dipyridamole-induced hyperemia and flow reserve in our study, whereas outflow tract obstruction was not an independent determinant.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiomyopathy III: Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Mitral Stenosis II: Clinical features and Diagnostic Tests
Cardiomyopathy I: Introduction and Classification
