Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 29, 2026
MRI and PET in Mouse Models of Myocardial Infarction
Published on: December 19, 2013
Prediction of functional recovery in acute myocardial infarction: comparison between sestamibi reverse redistribution
S Fujiwara1, Y Takeishi, H Atsumi
1First Department of Internal Medicine, Yamagata University School of Medicine, Iida-Nishi, Japan. sfujiwar@med.id.yamagata-u.ac.jp
Background:
It has been known that Tc 99m sestamibi/iodine 123 betamethyliodophenylpentadecanoic (123I-BMIPP) (sestamibi/BMIPP) mismatch is an indicator of viable myocardium in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We have reported that reverse redistribution of sestamibi in AMI indicates the patency of infarct-related artery and a preserved left ventricular function in the chronic stage. In this study we investigated the relationship between reverse redistribution of sestamibi and sestamibi/BMIPP mismatch in patients with AMI.
Methods:
Twenty-three patients with AMI who received direct percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty underwent both BMIPP and sestamibi SPECT within 2 weeks after onset. Sestamibi images were obtained 1 hour (early) and 3 hours (delayed) after injection of sestamibi. BMIPP imaging was carried out 30 minutes after injection. The left ventricle was divided into 17 segments, and regional myocardial uptakes of the tracers in each segment were scored from 0 (normal) to 3 (no activity). A reverse redistribution pattern was defined as an increase of > or =1 in the regional score at the delayed images. More reduced BMIPP uptake than sestamibi uptake in each segment was determined as sestamibi/BMIPP mismatch. Contrast left ventriculography was performed soon after revascularization and repeated 1 month later.
Results:
Of 15 patients with sestamibi reverse redistribution, sestamibi/BMIPP mismatch was observed in 14 patients (93%), whereas mismatch was seen in only one of seven patients (14%) without reverse redistribution (p < 0.01). In patients with sestamibi reverse redistribution, regional scores of BMIPP agreed with those of early and delayed images of sestamibi in 51 segments (46%) and in 92 segments (83%), respectively. In the chronic stage, both regional wall motion and left ventricular ejection fraction improved in patients with sestamibi reverse redistribution (wall motion score: 6.7 +/- 2.4 vs 2.7 +/- 2.1, p < 0.01; ejection fraction: 56% +/- 7% vs 64% +/- 8%, p < 0.01), but not in those without reverse redistribution.
Conclusion:
Both reverse redistribution of sestamibi and sestamibi/BMIPP mismatch reflect the recovery of left ventricular function and thus imply myocardial viability in AMI. Because the presence of reverse redistribution of sestamibi agreed with that of sestamibi/BMIPP mismatch, additional BMIPP images can be replaced by the delayed images after a single injection of sestamibi.
