Home > Riviste > Minerva Cardiology and Angiology > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Cardiology and Angiology 2021 October;69(5) > Minerva Cardiology and Angiology 2021 October;69(5):485-90



Opzioni di pubblicazione
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca


Publication history
Per citare questo articolo



Minerva Cardiology and Angiology 2021 October;69(5):485-90

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-5683.20.05180-4


lingua: Inglese

Myocardial perfusion imaging in patients with unprotected left main disease

Francesco NUDI 1, 2, Alessandro NUDI 1, Giandomenico NERI 3, Enrica PROCACCINI 3, Orazio SCHILLACI 4, Francesco VERSACI 5, Giacomo FRATI 6, 7, Giuseppe BIONDI-ZOCCAI 6, 8

1 Service of Hybrid Cardiac Imaging, Madonna della Fiducia Clinic, Rome, Italy; 2 Replycare, Rome, Italy; 3 Ostia Radiologica, Rome, Italy; 4 Institute of Nuclear Medicine, Tor Vergata University, Rome, Italy; 5 UOC UTIC Hemodynamics and Cardiology, Santa Maria Goretti Hospital, Latina, Rome, Italy; 6 Department of Medico-Surgical Sciences and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University, Latina, Italy; 7 IRCCS NEUROMED, Pozzilli, Isernia, Italy; 8 Mediterranea Cardiocentro, Naples, Italy

BACKGROUND: The management of patients with unprotected left main (LM) coronary artery disease remains challenging, with recent data casting a shadow of doubt on the safety of percutaneous coronary intervention. We aimed at describing the features of patients undergoing myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) subsequently found to have LM disease.
METHODS: We queried our institutional database for subjects without prior revascularization or myocardial infarction (MI), who had undergone MPI followed by invasive coronary angiography within 6 months, comparing those with evidence of angiographically significant LM disease (i.e. diameter stenosis ≥50%) to those without significant coronary artery disease (CAD), or those with CAD not involving LM. Baseline, stress and imaging features were systematically collected and analyzed, and clinical outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, revascularization) sought.
RESULTS: We included a total of 74 patients with LM disease, which were compared with 70 without CAD, and 920 with significant CAD not involving LM. MPI was remarkably safe in all subjects, and significant differences were found for several features, but particularly so for ST change, rate pressure product, and left ventricular ejection fraction (all P<0.05). Most patients with LM disease had moderate or severe ischemia, and the apical, lateral and inferior regions were the most sensitive ones. Clinical outcomes after an average of 35 months were worse in patients with LM disease than in subjects with significant CAD not involving LM, albeit non-significantly, possibly in light of the higher use of coronary artery bypass grafting.
CONCLUSIONS: MPI is safe and informative in patients with LM disease, and multidimensional appraisal of MPI results may guide decision-making on top of providing prognostic detail and warranty period.

KEY WORDS: Coronary artery disease; Myocardial ischemia; Myocardial perfusion imaging

inizio pagina