Perfusion Computed Tomography for the Assessment of Myocardial Viability — a Case Series

1. van Loon RB, Veen G, Kamp O, Baur LHB, van Rossum AC. Left ventricular remodeling after acute myocardial infarction: the influence of viability and revascularization — an echocardiographic substudy of the VIAMI-trial. Trials. 2014;15:329.10.1186/1745-6215-15-329414108625135364Search in Google Scholar

2. Elfigih IA, Henein MY. Non-invasive imaging in detecting myocardial viability: Myocardial function versus perfusion. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2014;5:51-56.Search in Google Scholar

3. Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation. 2008;117:1283-1291.10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.74396318268144Search in Google Scholar

4. Cury RC, Nieman K, Shapiro MD, et al. Comprehensive assessment of myocardial perfusion defects, regional wall motion, and left ventricular function by using 64-section multidetector CT. Radiology. 2008;248:466-475.10.1148/radiol.2482071478279764918641250Search in Google Scholar

5. Meijboom WB, Meijs MF, Schuijf JD, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography: a prospective, multicenter, multivendor study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;52(25):2135-2144.10.1016/j.jacc.2008.08.05819095130Search in Google Scholar

6. Di carli MF, Dorbala S, Curillova Z, et al. Relationship between CT coronary angiography and stress perfusion imaging in patients with suspected ischemic heart disease assessed by integrated PET-CT imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 2007;14:799-809.10.1016/j.nuclcard.2007.07.01218022106Search in Google Scholar

7. Blankstein R, Shturman LD, Rogers IS, et al. Adenosine-induced stress myocardial perfusion imaging using dual-source cardiac computed tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1072-1084.10.1016/j.jacc.2009.06.01419744616Search in Google Scholar

8. Budoff MJ, Gul KM. Expert review on coronary calcium. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2008;4(2):315-324.Search in Google Scholar

9. Greenland P, Bonow RO, Brundage BH, et al. ACCF/AHA 2007 clinical expert consensus document on coronary artery calcium scoring by computed tomography in global cardiovascular risk assessment and in evaluation of patients with chest pain: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Clinical Expert Consensus Task Force (ACCF/AHA Writing Committee to Update the 2000 Expert Consensus Document on Electron Beam Computed Tomography) developed in collaboration with the Society of Atherosclerosis Imaging and Prevention and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(3):378-402.10.1016/j.jacc.2006.10.00117239724Search in Google Scholar

10. Partington SL, Kwong RY, Dorbala S. Multimodality imaging in the assessment of myocardial viability. Heart Fail Rev. 2011;16(4):381-395.10.1007/s10741-010-9201-7395452021069458Search in Google Scholar

11. Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, Cohen I, Berman DS. Comparison of the Short-Term Survival Benefit Associated With Revascularization Compared With Medical Therapy in Patients With No Prior Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Stress Myocardial Perfusion Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography. Circulation. 2003;107:2900-2907.10.1161/01.CIR.0000072790.23090.4112771008Search in Google Scholar

12. Gaemperli O, Husmann L, Schepis T, et al. Coronary CT angiography and myocardial perfusion imaging to detect flow-limiting stenoses: a potential gatekeeper for coronary revascularization? Eur Heart J. 2009;30:2921-2929.Search in Google Scholar

13. Chen JF, Eltschig HK, Fredholm BB, et al. Adenosine receptors as drug targets – What are the challenges? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12(4):265-86.10.1038/nrd3955393007423535933Search in Google Scholar

14. Levine MG, Ahlberg AW, Mann A, et al. Comparison of exercise, dipyridamole, adenosine, and dobutamine stress with the use of Tc-99m tetrofosmin tomographic imaging. J Nucl Cardiol. 1999;6:389-396.10.1016/S1071-3581(99)90004-1Search in Google Scholar

15. Cheng W, Zeng M, Arellano C, et al. Detection of myocardial perfusion abnormalities: standard dual-source coronary computed tomography angiography versus rest/stress technetium-99m single-photo emission CT. Br J Radiol. 2010;83:652-660.10.1259/bjr/82257160347350520413446Search in Google Scholar

16. Techasith T, Cury RC. Stress Myocardial CT Perfusion: An update an future perspective. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;8(4):905-916.10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.04.01721835384Search in Google Scholar

17. Kloner RA, Bolli R, Marban E, Reinlib L, Braunwald E. Medical an Cellular Implications of Stunning, Hibernation, and Preconditioning – An NHLBI Workshop. Circulation. 1998;97:1848-1867.10.1161/01.CIR.97.18.18489603540Search in Google Scholar

18. Bucher AM, De Cecco CN, Schoepf UJ, et al. Cardiac CT for myocardial ischaemia detection and characterization — comparative analysis. Br J Radiol. 2014;87:20140159.10.1259/bjr.20140159420715725135617Search in Google Scholar