Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
 

Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »

Stanford Health Care

Comparative definitions for moderate-severe ischemia in stress nuclear, echocardiography, and magnetic resonance imaging. JACC. Cardiovascular imaging Shaw, L. J., Berman, D. S., Picard, M. H., Friedrich, M. G., Kwong, R. Y., Stone, G. W., Senior, R., Min, J. K., Hachamovitch, R., Scherrer-Crosbie, M., Mieres, J. H., Marwick, T. H., Phillips, L. M., Chaudhry, F. A., Pellikka, P. A., Slomka, P., Arai, A. E., Iskandrian, A. E., Bateman, T. M., Heller, G. V., Miller, T. D., Nagel, E., Goyal, A., Borges-Neto, S., Boden, W. E., Reynolds, H. R., Hochman, J. S., Maron, D. J., Douglas, P. S. 2014; 7 (6): 593-604

Abstract

The lack of standardized reporting of the magnitude of ischemia on noninvasive imaging contributes to variability in translating the severity of ischemia across stress imaging modalities. We identified the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) death or myocardial infarction (MI) associated with =10% ischemic myocardium on stress nuclear imaging as the risk threshold for stress echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance. A narrative review revealed that =10% ischemic myocardium on stress nuclear imaging was associated with a median rate of CAD death or MI of 4.9%/year (interquartile range: 3.75% to 5.3%). For stress echocardiography, =3 newly dysfunctional segments portend a median rate of CAD death or MI of 4.5%/year (interquartile range: 3.8% to 5.9%). Although imprecisely delineated, moderate-severe ischemia on cardiac magnetic resonance may be indicated by =4 of 32 stress perfusion defects or =3 dobutamine-induced dysfunctional segments. Risk-based thresholds can define equivalent amounts of ischemia across the stress imaging modalities, which will help to translate a common understanding of patient risk on which to guide subsequent management decisions.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jcmg.2013.10.021

View details for PubMedID 24925328

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4128344