Abstract
Background
The present study evaluates the lack of Q waves on the electrocardiogram (ECG) in the prediction of myocardial viability compared with dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and rest‐redistribution thallium‐201 (Tl‐201) scintigraphy.
Hypothesis
The lack of pathologic Q waves (NoQ) may be a readily available and specific marker for the presence of viability.
Methods
Sixty four patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and ventricular dysfunction underwent rest ECG, DSE, and Tl‐201 scintigraphy before revascularization, and a repeat rest 2‐Dimensional (2‐D) echocardiogram more than 3 mo later.
Results
Total viability at baseline (% of total segments) was higher in the NoQ group by Tl‐201 scintigraphy (87 ± 19% versus 70 ± 20%, p = 0.008) and by DSE (81 ± 20% versus 65 ± 24%, p = 0.013). As expected, the sensitivity of NoQ waves was low in predicting recovery of function (23%), and inferior to Tl‐201 (82%) and DSE (84%) (p<0.08). However, specificity of NoQ waves for predicting recovery of global function was high (72%); higher than Tl‐201 (50%) and DSE (45%). Positive predictive values were comparable among all modalities. Results were similar if the data were analyzed regionally for viability.
Conclusion
Lack of pathologic Q waves is a specific and readily available marker of myocardial viability in patients with chronic CAD, which should alert the clinician for myocardial hibernation. Copyright © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Keywords: myocardial hibernation, electrocardiogram, ischemic heart disease, dobutamine stress echocardiography, thallium scintigraphy
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (446.4 KB).
References
- 1. Rahimtoola SH: The hibernating myocardium. Am Heart J 1989; 117(1): 211–221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Schinkel AFL, Bax JJ, Boersma E, Elhendy A, Vourvouri EC, et al.: Assessment of residual myocardial viability in regions with chronic electrocardiographic Q‐wave infarction. Am Heart J 2002; 144(5); 865–869. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Afridi I, Kleiman NS, Raizner AE, Zoghbi WA: Dobutamine echocardiography in myocardial hibernation. Optimal dose and accuracy in predicting recovery of ventricular function after coronary angioplasty. Circulation 1995; 91(3): 663–670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Qureshi U, Nagueh SF, Afridi I, Vaduganathan P, Glaustein A, et al.: Dobutamine echocardiography and quantitative rest‐redistribution 201 Tl tomography in myocardial hibernation: relation of contractile reserve to 201 Tl uptake and comparative prediction of recovery of function. Circulation 1997; 95(3): 626–635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Afridi I, Qureshi U, Kopelen HA, Winters WL, Zoghbi WA: Serial changes in response of hibernating myocardium to inotropic stimulation after revascularization: a dobutamine echocardiographic study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1997; 30(5): 1233–1240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Ragosta M, Beller GA, Watson DD, Kaul S, Gimple LW: Quantitative planar rest‐redistribution 201 Tl imaging in detection of myocardial viability and prediction of improvement in left ventricular function after coronary bypass surgery in patients with severely depressed left ventricular function. Circulation 1993; 87(5): 1630–1641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Wagner GS: Myocardial infarction In Echocardiography, Marriott's Practical Electrocardiography (Ed. Wagner GA.), p 182 Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 8. Wagner GS, Freye CJ, Palmeri ST, Roark SF, Stack NC, et al.: Evaluation of a QRS scoring system for estimating myocardial infarct size. Specificity and observer agreement. Circulation 1982; 65(2): 342–347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Pope JE, Wagner NB, Dubow D, Edmonds JH, Wagner GS, et al.: Development of an automated method of the Selvester QRS Scoring system for myocardial infarct size. Am J Cardiol 1988; 61(10): 734–738. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Quinones MA, Waggoner AD, Reduto LA, Nelson JG, Young JB, et al.: A new simplified and accurate method for determining ejection fraction with two‐dimensional echocardiography. Circulation 1981; 64(4): 744–753. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Phibbs B, Marcus F, Marriott HJ, Moss A, Spodick DH: Q‐wave versus non‐Q wave myocardial infarction: a meaningless distinction. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 33(2): 576–582. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Pipberger H, Lopez EA: “Silent” subendocardial infarcts: fact or fiction? Am Heart J 1980; 100(5): 597–599. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Phibbs B: “Transmural” versus “subendocardial” myocardial infarction: an electrocardiographic myth. J Am Coll Cardiol 1983; 1(2.1): 561–564. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Spodick DH: Q‐wave infarction versus S‐T infarction: non‐specificity of electrocardiographic criteria for differentiating transmural and nontransmural lesions. Am J Cardiol 1983; 51(5): 913–915. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Schneider C, Voth E, Baer F, Horst M, Watner R, et al.: QT dispersion is determined by the extent of viable myocardium in patients with chronic Q‐wave myocardial infarction. Circulation 1997; 96(11): 3913–3920. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]