Wilzeck V C, Mandoli G E, Demirkiran A, Androulakis E, Soliman Aboumarie H, Giannopoulos A A, Joshi S, Bhattacharyya S, Palomares J F, Podlesnikar T, Dweck M R, Manka R
Department of Cardiology, University Heart Center, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091 Zürich, Switzerland.
Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091 Zürich, Switzerland.
Eur Heart J Imaging Methods Pract. 2025 Jul 18;3(2):qyaf095. doi: 10.1093/ehjimp/qyaf095. eCollection 2025 Jul.
To evaluate the current role and practice patterns in myocardial viability assessment through a European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) survey.
A total of 179 participants from 54 countries completed the survey. Most participants worked in tertiary centres (60.3%). Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) was the most widely available modality (98.3%), followed by stress echocardiography (86.6%), cardiac computed tomography angiography (87.7%), and cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR, 84.9%). Single-photon emission computed tomography and positron emission tomography were less accessible (59.8 and 40.2%, respectively). CMR was the preferred imaging modality (76.0%), followed by TTE (41.9%), which were also the most frequently used techniques in clinical practice (42.7 and 38.7%, respectively). Viability imaging was regularly used by most respondents in patients with chronic ischaemic heart disease (57.0%) and prior to revascularization for chronic total occlusions (58.7%). Among late-presenting ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients, 60.7% of respondents assessed viability within index hospitalization or the first month, whereas 28.3% performed viability imaging after 1-3 months. However, considerable variation exists between respondents. Revascularization decisions were guided by viability findings with revascularization of only viable segments in 49.1% of cases, while 40.0% reported revascularizing all high-grade stenoses if any viable myocardium was present.
This study highlights the variability in myocardial viability imaging practices across Europe, with differences in availability, preferred modalities, and clinical application. While CMR and TTE remain the dominant modalities, standardization of imaging protocols and further research are needed to optimize viability assessment and its impact on revascularization decisions.
通过欧洲心血管影像协会(EACVI)的一项调查,评估心肌存活评估的当前作用和实践模式。
来自54个国家的179名参与者完成了该调查。大多数参与者在三级中心工作(60.3%)。经胸超声心动图(TTE)是最广泛可用的检查方法(98.3%),其次是负荷超声心动图(86.6%)、心脏计算机断层血管造影(87.7%)和心血管磁共振成像(CMR,84.9%)。单光子发射计算机断层扫描和正电子发射断层扫描的可及性较低(分别为59.8%和40.2%)。CMR是首选的成像方式(76.0%),其次是TTE(41.9%),它们也是临床实践中最常用的技术(分别为42.7%和38.7%)。大多数受访者在慢性缺血性心脏病患者中经常使用存活心肌成像(57.0%),在慢性完全闭塞病变血运重建前也经常使用(58.7%)。在延迟就诊的ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者中,60.7%的受访者在首次住院期间或第一个月内评估存活心肌,而28.3%的受访者在1 - 3个月后进行存活心肌成像。然而,受访者之间存在相当大的差异。血运重建决策受存活心肌检查结果的指导,49.1%的病例仅对存活节段进行血运重建,而40.0%的受访者报告如果存在任何存活心肌,则对所有严重狭窄病变进行血运重建。
本研究强调了欧洲心肌存活成像实践的变异性,在可及性、首选方式和临床应用方面存在差异。虽然CMR和TTE仍然是主要方式,但需要成像方案的标准化和进一步研究,以优化存活心肌评估及其对血运重建决策的影响。