Related Experiment Videos
Can dobutamine echocardiography distinguish necrotic from ischemic myocardium, early after myocardial infarction?
M C Herregods1, B Bijnens, A Vandeplas
1University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Department of Cardiology, Leuven, Belgium.
Insights
Dobutamine echocardiography (DE) effectively detects residual ischemia after myocardial infarction. To improve accuracy, focus on extensive wall motion changes across the entire infarct zone, not localized segments.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Diagnostic Imaging
Background:
- Acute myocardial infarction requires accurate assessment of myocardial viability.
- Distinguishing necrotic from ischemic tissue is crucial for guiding treatment decisions.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the utility of dobutamine echocardiography (DE) in differentiating necrotic from ischemic myocardium.
- To assess the correlation between DE findings and long-term wall motion recovery and need for intervention.
Main Methods:
- Dobutamine echocardiography (DE) was performed in 39 patients 3-5 days post-myocardial infarction.
- Positive DE was defined by worsening or biphasic wall motion response in the infarct zone.
- Results were correlated with 3-month wall motion evolution and need for balloon dilatation.
Main Results:
- Fifteen of 39 patients showed evidence of residual ischemia.
- Twenty patients had a positive DE; 11 had residual ischemia with generalized wall motion changes.
- Nine patients with localized wall motion changes on DE had no residual ischemia.
Conclusions:
- Dobutamine echocardiography (DE) is valuable for detecting residual ischemia in the infarct zone.
- To minimize false positives, only extensive wall motion abnormalities in the entire infarct territory should indicate residual ischemia.
Unlabelled:
The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of dobutamine echocardiography (DE) in distinguishing necrotic from ischemic myocardium in infarct zones. We performed DE in 39 patients, 3 to 5 days after admission for a first, acute myocardial infarction, treated with thrombolysis. DE was considered positive if wall motion in the infarct zone worsened progressively during increasing dose of dobutamine or if wall motion in the infarct zone initially improved at low dose of dobutamine and deteriorated at higher dose. The results of DE were correlated to the evolution of wall motion in the infarct zone after 3 months and to the need for supplementary balloon dilatation. In 15 of the 39 patients, there was evidence of residual ischemia in the infarct zone. Twenty of the 39 patients had a positive dobutamine echocardiogram. Eleven of these 20 patients had evidence of residual ischemia in the infarct zone. They showed generalized changes of wall motion in the total infarct territory during DE. The other 9 patients demonstrated only localized changes of wall motion in isolated segments of the infarct zone during DE. None of these patients had evidence of residual ischemia.
In Conclusion:
DE seems worthwhile in the detection of residual ischemia in the region of infarction. To reduce the number of false positive DE early after myocardial infarction, only extensive changes of wall motion in the total infarct territory should be accepted as indicative of residual ischemia in the infarct zone.