RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This investigation sought to compare the abilities of stress radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging and stress echocardiography to detect residual ischemia in patients following acute myocardial infarction (MI). BACKGROUND: Stress radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging and stress echocardiography are both commonly used to assess patients (patients.) in the immediate post MI period. However, the relative value of these techniques in identifying post MI ischemia remains unclear. METHODS: Eighteen patients. underwent both dipyridamole radionuclide perfusion imaging and dobutamine stress echocardiography on the same day or on consecutive days, 3-7 days following uncomplicated acute MI. Pts. who had an acute percutaneous intervention were excluded. Images were reviewed with clinical information available, but blinded to the opposing modality, for perfusion defects, wall motion abnormalities (WMA), and evidence of ischemia (reversible defect(s) on perfusion imaging, worsening WMA on stress echocardiography). Of the 18 patients, 11 subsequently underwent cardiac catheterization. RESULTS: Perfusion imaging identified defects in 16 (89%) patients, of whom 15 (83% of total) were found to be ischemic. Stress echocardiography identified a fixed wall motion abnormality in 17 (94%) and ischemia in 8 (44%, p < 0.05 compared with perfusion imaging ischemia). Among 11 patients who underwent catheterization, there was a trend towards perfusion imaging identifying more ischemia in the territory of an obstructed (> or = 70%) vessel--100% (11/11) vs. 64% (7/11) for stress echocardiography (p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: In the immediate post-infarction period, dipyridamole stress radionuclide myocardial perfusion imaging more often shows evidence of residual ischemia than dobutamine stress echocardiography.
