Use of radionuclide imaging in acute coronary syndromes

Noninvasive cardiac imaging in the evaluation of suspected acute coronary syndromes

Optimal management of patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency department is a major challenge, both in terms of a diagnostic dilemma and consumption of resources. The triage of such patients can be aided vastly by the appropriate use of noninvasive imaging. Noninvasive imaging modalities such as echocardiogram, radionuclide perfusion studies, positron emission tomography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography have all been demonstrated to have favorable diagnostic and prognostic value, with an enhanced sensitivity to detect acute ischemia. A normal noninvasive evaluation in the appropriate clinical setting presents a strong argument against acute ischemia as an etiology of the chest pain. Randomized trials of both rest and stress imaging in the emergency department have confirmed a reduction in unnecessary hospitalizations and cost savings without compromising the safety of the patient. Cardiac magnetic resonance and computed tomography would provide an insight into subendocardial ischemia, the detection of which has previously been difficult, using single-photon emission tomography and echocardiography. In this review, novel hot-spot imaging modalities are discussed including infarct-avid imaging agents and ischemia-avid imaging agents, thus elucidating the pathophysiology of reperfusion-induced cell death. These agents represent work in evolution and are likely to be used routinely in the future as understanding of coronary syndromes and coronary artery disease becomes clearer.

Redefinition of the Q wave -- is there a clinical problem?

This study evaluated the potential consequences of the redefined joint European/American electrocardiographic criteria for an established myocardial infarction (MI). New and previous diagnostic Q-wave criteria were used in patients with stable angina pectoris. Seventy-nine patients with and 77 patients without a documented previous MI were compared using the results of myocardial perfusion imaging at rest as a reference. With the new Q-wave criteria, 71% of the former group and 40% of the latter had evidence of established MI compared with 33% and 3% when using the previous criteria (p <0.0001). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 71%, 60%, 64%, and 67% for the new criteria versus 33%, 97%, 93%, and 59% with the previous criteria. These data suggest that that the new Q-wave criteria may be too nonspecific, resulting in an inappropriately high number of false-positive results.