Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Emilia Babes
 -- 2021 2023-01-18 02:16:18 |
2 format correct
Catherine Yang
 Meta information modification 2021 2023-01-18 02:26:10 |

Video Upload Options

We provide professional Video Production Services to translate complex research into visually appealing presentations. Would you like to try it?
No, upload directly Yes

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Babes, E.E.;  Tit, D.M.;  Bungau, A.F.;  Bustea, C.;  Rus, M.;  Bungau, S.G.;  Babes, V.V. Hibernating Myocardium and Prognosis in Ischemic Heart Failure. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/40316 (accessed on 18 November 2024).
Babes EE,  Tit DM,  Bungau AF,  Bustea C,  Rus M,  Bungau SG, et al. Hibernating Myocardium and Prognosis in Ischemic Heart Failure. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/40316. Accessed November 18, 2024.
Babes, Elena Emilia, Delia Mirela Tit, Alexa Florina Bungau, Cristiana Bustea, Marius Rus, Simona Gabriela Bungau, Victor Vlad Babes. "Hibernating Myocardium and Prognosis in Ischemic Heart Failure" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/40316 (accessed November 18, 2024).
Babes, E.E.,  Tit, D.M.,  Bungau, A.F.,  Bustea, C.,  Rus, M.,  Bungau, S.G., & Babes, V.V. (2023, January 18). Hibernating Myocardium and Prognosis in Ischemic Heart Failure. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/40316
Babes, Elena Emilia, et al. "Hibernating Myocardium and Prognosis in Ischemic Heart Failure." Encyclopedia. Web. 18 January, 2023.
Hibernating Myocardium and Prognosis in Ischemic Heart Failure
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/life12111760

Ischemic heart disease is still the leading cause of morbidity and mortality. There is an increasing number of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and heart failure. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most important cause of chronic heart failure accounting for two thirds of left ventricular (LV) dysfunction cases. Hibernating myocardium is defined as a dysfunctional but viable cardiac area with persistently reduced contractility due to reduced coronary blood flow at rest. Myocardial contraction requires a higher amount of energy than that needed for cell survival. 

coronary artery disease heart failure ischemic cardiomyopathy

1. Revascularization and Prognosis

The outcome after revascularization of hibernating myocardium is still an area of debate since the results of the randomized clinical trials are not supporting the findings from previous observational studies. Furthermore, the usefulness of viability testing prior to the revascularization procedure became unclear after publishing the results from the STICH trial and REVIVED BCSI2 [1][2].
However, the follow-up of patients from the STICH trial after 20 years of enrollment showed a trend for better survival in the group of patients with viability, compared to the non-viable group, and once again assessing myocardial viability came into focus [3]. Imaging tools such as SPECT and DSE used in STICH could miss some cases of myocardial viability, and patients were wrongly included in the non-viable group. PET and cardiac MRI can detect myocardial viability in cases where DSE and SPECT are failing, but these imaging tools were not available in STICH [4][5].
Yet, what is clear is that patients with severe LV remodeling, lower ejection fraction, larger LV volume, and more extensive CAD are more likely to benefit from surgical revascularization. These patients are at the highest risk for future acute coronary events, will tolerate less a new event, and will benefit more after CABG.
It seems that improvement of the LV function is not the only mechanism, and is not the most important mechanism for improved outcomes after CABG [4]. A relatively small improvement in LV ejection fraction was observed in the early stages following revascularization in STICH. The mean improvement in LV ejection fraction was 2% at 4 months in a group with an important amount of viable myocardium [6]. There are multiple factors involved in this: viable areas are not necessarily with contractile dysfunction, the regional nature of LV dysfunction that can result from various combinations of scarred and hibernating myocardium, the completeness and durability of revascularization, and the degree of peri-operative myocardial injury [7]. On the other side, after revascularization, sometimes a longer time of recovery may be necessary [8]. In the STICH viability sub-study, improvement of LVEF at 4 months was also observed in patients with optimization of medical treatment and was not correlated with long-term outcomes [4]. A small number of patients from STICH had a significant improvement (≥10%) of ejection fraction at 24 months after randomization [9] associated with reduced mortality. This improvement of the LV ejection fraction was not correlated with the type of treatment, and this further sustains that improving of LV function is not the most important mechanism that is leading to increased survival after CABG [10]. Beyond recovery of LV function, the most important beneficial mechanism for CABG is protection from future acute coronary events, and preventing of further damage and of sudden death [11]. Other mechanisms involved in the benefit of CABG are myocardial ischemia improvement due to improvement of coronary flow reserve and restoration of electrical stability of myocytes. CABG is improving survival, but also exercise tolerance and quality of life [12][13]. An important factor that should be considered is if there is concordance between the viable segments and the suitability for revascularization of the vessels that are distributing blood to that area. If there is concordance, CABG revascularization will protect the myocardium from future ischemic and arrhythmic events. In addition, this is more relevant in patients with multi-vessel disease and LV dysfunction [14].
The risk of death from heart failure in patients with ischemic LV dysfunction is clearly correlated to LV ejection fraction, but sudden arrhythmic or ischemic deaths are not. In the Digitalis Intervention Group trial, after analyzing the connection between LV ejection fraction and mechanism of death in 7788 patients (69% of them with ischemic heart failure), a near-linear relationship was demonstrated between LV ejection fraction and death from worsening heart failure, but the risk of death due to arrhythmic events was constant across the spectrum of reduced LV ejection fraction [15]. Sudden death risk due to ventricular arrhythmic events and myocardial infarction [11][16] can be influenced by revascularization, independent of any effect on contractile function. Myocardial scar can produce electrical instability, but the relationship between the amount of scar and risk is non-linear [17][18]. The benefits of CABG in STICH probably resulted from the reduction in sudden deaths due to fatal ventricular arrhythmias, and the prevention of acute myocardial infarction. The border area between the infarcted and viable myocardium is characterized by a non-uniform conduction and varying refractoriness and has an important arrhythmogenic potential [19][20]. Arrhythmogenesis is further increased by ischemia via intracellular acidosis and membrane depolarization. Incomplete revascularization with residual ischemia and peri-procedural myocardial infarction can appear [7], and therefore the reduction of arrhythmic risk cannot be predicted precisely. The electrophysiological properties of the myocardium are influenced earlier and independent from LV function recovery after revascularization [21][22].
Reduction in LV volume and sphericity after revascularization are also important prognostic factors beyond the improvement of regional wall thickening and of LV ejection fraction [23][24].
The risk associated with CABG will determine the final decision of surgical revascularization. PCI has a lower procedural risk, but the benefits of interventional revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy need to be further evaluated. No improvement in regional LV function was observed in the randomized studies of chronic total occlusion PCI, even in the presence of viable myocardium; however, these were not addressed to patients with severe LV systolic dysfunction [25][26]. More recently, the REVIVED-BCIS2 trial showed no additional benefit for PCI revascularization versus OMT alone, in patients with severely impaired LV function and extensive CAD [1].
Furthermore, the presence of extensive viability has been shown to predict the response to various treatment methods, such as pharmacological [27][28], and cardiac resynchronization therapy [29], and not only to revascularization.
The available data suggest that revascularization is reducing mortality in patients with ischemic heart failure that have a substantial amount of viable myocardium. The benefits of revascularization in patients without a substantial amount of viable myocardium remain unclear. The treatment effect of CABG in STICH was independent of viability status, with similar reductions in sudden cardiac death and heart failure. It is probably appropriate to recommend CABG in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy based on the extent of their CAD, rather than on the viability testing [30]. Furthermore, no imaging method can assess viability with perfect precision, and variable accuracy is described for different imaging tests, so the HEART Team can decide on revascularization if it is clinically indicated [31].
The relationship between myocardial viability and revascularization is further studied in the ongoing trial IMAGE-HF (Imaging Modalities to Assist with Guiding and Evaluation of patients with Heart Failure): a prospective study that will compare the effect of an advanced imaging technique such as PET and cardiac MRI on clinical outcomes of patients with ischemic heart failure compared to those using standard care, including SPECT [32].

2. Interaction between Myocardial Ischemia and Viability

There are still many unknown elements regarding the interaction between ischemia and viability in predicting both clinical outcomes and treatment effects.
Myocardial hibernation is induced by recurrent episodes of inducible ischemia, and the reversal of hibernation depends on two factors: resolution of ischemia and a viable myocardium that is able to recover. The recovery of dysfunctional myocardium is most likely to occur in territories with both inducible ischemia and viability.
There are a few observational data that support these findings, respectively, a greater diagnostic accuracy if both contractile reserve and ischemia are demonstrated via a biphasic response on DSE, versus the demonstration of contractile reserve alone [33][34]. In addition, in the CHRISTMAS trial, a more important improvement in the LV ejection fraction was observed in patients with a larger area of hibernating myocardium or hibernating and ischemic myocardium, suggesting that the pharmacological treatment of ischemic or hibernating myocardium is contributing to the improvement of LV function [25].
Patients with ischemic LV dysfunction have, in general, a multi-vessel complex CAD, so probably they have a large ischemic burden on functional testing. Hibernating myocardium itself is an adaptive response to ischemia, but the ability to demonstrate inducible ischemic contractile dysfunction may be limited, and it is difficult to evaluate ischemia when the myocardium is thinned or partially scarred [35].
Patients with ischemic LV dysfunction and important inducible ischemia have poorer outcomes. The benefits of revascularization are greater in those with more extensive ischemia in observational studies [36]. However, it is difficult to evaluate the treatment effect from observational data, since the revascularization decision is commonly influenced by comorbidities or the frailty of patients that increase the procedural risk or reduce the chance of benefit, despite the presence of extensive ischemia.
The role of ischemia in selecting patients with ischemic LV dysfunction for revascularization is controversial. Observational studies observed that low-dose DSE allowed the risk stratification of outcome after revascularization [37]. Some studies have identified an association between the presence of inducible ischemia and better outcomes after revascularization, while others have shown that this becomes irrelevant when other clinical factors, such as scar burden and non-viable myocardium are considered [38][39]. Rizzello et al. identified that in patients already scheduled to undergo revascularization, viability was a strong predictor of long-term prognosis, but the magnitude of ischemia on DSE was not a predictor of cardiac mortality [33].
A sub-study of the ISCHEMIA trial evaluated the relation between inducible ischemia and the effect of revascularization on clinical outcomes, in patients with heart failure and a mid-range ejection fraction, and revealed improved results with revascularization vs. pharmacological treatment [40]. The value of this analysis is limited by a small sample size, interactions between ischemia and viability were not explored, and patients with severely reduced ejection fraction were excluded from the study [41].
In clinical practice, most of the patients undergo coronarography as an initial investigation, followed directly by angioplasty or they are sent to CABG, so the majority of them are not evaluated regarding myocardial viability. If the evidence for the importance of viability testing will increase, then development of viability tests that can be used as adjunctive to coronarography will improve the management of these patients [6].

3. Pharmacological Therapy and Prognosis in Ischemic Heart Failure

Pharmacological therapy can improve the balance between myocardial oxygen consumption and demand, can diminish myocardial ischemia and restore contractile function, and can reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic and arrhythmic events. Beta-blockers are reducing heart rate and myocardial oxygen consumption; increasing diastole and improving coronary perfusion; and decreasing the risk of arrhythmia, recurrent myocardial infarction, and sudden death [42]. In the CHRISTMAS trial, the effectiveness of beta-blockers in improving LV function was related to the extent of myocardial hibernation [42].
Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE), angiotensin receptor blockers, and aldosterone receptor antagonists are reducing LV end-diastolic volume, LV pressure, and wall stress, and are improving subendocardial flow. These drugs can reduce mortality and the risk of heart failure hospitalization and improve symptoms [43].
Angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors reduce the worsening of heart failure, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and improve heart failure symptoms and quality of life [44][45][46].
Obviously, the pharmacological treatment has a key role in the management of patients with ischemic heart failure and should not be neglected even if patients are referred for revascularization. On the other hand, there is an interaction between pharmacological therapy, revascularization, and viability, so controlling for their individual effect is very difficult in clinical trials. An experimental approach to the treatment of hibernating myocardium is to consider regenerative techniques by injecting stem cells (mesenchymal stem cells and mononuclear cells) into models of myocardial ischemia, that can lead to the improvement of myocardial contractility [2].
Randomized trials are needed, which consider the scope of viability testing more broadly, not simply if there is viable myocardium or not, but also to evaluate the amount or the percentage of the myocardium that is viable and to determine a relation between the amount of viable but dysfunctional myocardium and the response to revascularization therapy.

References

  1. Perera, D.; Clayton, T.; O’Kane, P.D.; Greenwood, J.P.; Weerackody, R.; Ryan, M.; Morgan, H.P.; Dodd, M.; Evans, R.; Canter, R.; et al. Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022, 387, 1351–1360.
  2. Kloner, R.A. Stunned and Hibernating Myocardium: Where Are We Nearly 4 Decades Later? J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2020, 9, e015502.
  3. Ahmed, C.M.; Sultan, M.A.U. The Context of StichTrial: Viable or not viable Does it matter before revascularization? Univers. Heart J. 2021, 17, 79–80.
  4. Panza, J.A.; Ellis, A.M.; Al-Khalidi, H.R.; Holly, T.A.; Berman, D.S.; Oh, J.K.; Pohost, G.M.; Sopko, G.; Chrzanowski, L.; Mark, D.B.; et al. Myocardial Viability and Long-Term Outcomes in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 739–748.
  5. Beanlands, R.S.B.; Nichol, G.; Huszti, E.; Humen, D.; Racine, N.; Freeman, M.; Gulenchyn, K.Y.; Garrard, L.; deKemp, R.; Guo, A.; et al. F-18-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography Imaging-Assisted Management of Patients with Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Suspected Coronary Disease: A Randomized, Controlled Trial (PARR-2). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2007, 50, 2002–2012.
  6. Ryan, M.; Morgan, H.; Chiribiri, A.; Nagel, E.; Cleland, J.; Perera, D. Myocardial viability testing: All STICHed up, or about to be REVIVED? Eur. Heart J. 2021, 43, 118–126.
  7. Rahimi, K.; Banning, A.P.; Cheng, A.S.H.; Pegg, T.J.; Karamitsos, T.D.; Channon, K.M.; Darby, S.; Taggart, D.P.; Neubauer, S.; Selvanayagam, J.B. Prognostic value of coronary revascularisation-related myocardial injury: A cardiac magnetic resonance imaging study. Heart 2009, 95, 1937.
  8. Bondarenko, O.; Beek, A.M.; Twisk, J.W.R.; Visser, C.A.; van Rossum, A.C. Time course of functional recovery after revascularization of hibernating myocardium: A contrast-enhanced cardiovascular magnetic resonance study. Eur. Heart J. 2008, 29, 2000–2005.
  9. Perry, A.S.; Mann, D.L.; Brown, D.L. Improvement of ejection fraction and mortality in ischaemic heart failure. Heart 2021, 107, 326–331.
  10. Pellikka, P.A.; She, L.; Holly, T.A.; Lin, G.; Varadarajan, P.; Pai, R.G.; Bonow, R.O.; Pohost, G.M.; Panza, J.A.; Berman, D.S.; et al. Variability in Ejection Fraction Measured By Echocardiography, Gated Single-Photon Emission Computed Tomography, and Cardiac Magnetic Resonance in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction. JAMA Netw. Open 2018, 1, e181456.
  11. Carson, P.; Wertheimer, J.; Miller, A.; O’Connor, C.M.; Pina, I.L.; Selzman, C.; Sueta, C.; She, L.; Greene, D.; Lee, K.L.; et al. The STICH Trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure): Mode-of-Death Results. JACC Heart Fail. 2013, 1, 400–408.
  12. Mark, D.B.; Knight, J.D.; Velazquez, E.J.; Wasilewski, J.; Howlett, J.G.; Smith, P.K.; Spertus, J.A.; Rajda, M.; Yadav, R.; Hamman, B.L. Quality-of-life outcomes with coronary artery bypass graft surgery in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction: A randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2014, 161, 392–399.
  13. Stewart, R.A.H.; Szalewska, D.; She, L.; Lee, K.L.; Drazner, M.H.; Lubiszewska, B.; Kosevic, D.; Ruengsakulrach, P.; Nicolau, J.C.; Coutu, B.; et al. Exercise Capacity and Mortality in Patients with Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction Randomized to Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery or Medical Therapy: An Analysis From the STICH Trial (Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure). JACC Heart Fail. 2014, 2, 335–343.
  14. Doenst, T.; Haverich, A.; Serruys, P.; Bonow, R.O.; Kappetein, P.; Falk, V.; Velazquez, E.; Diegeler, A.; Sigusch, H. PCI and CABG for Treating Stable Coronary Artery Disease: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 73, 964–976.
  15. Curtis, J.P.; Sokol, S.I.; Wang, Y.; Rathore, S.S.; Ko, D.T.; Jadbabaie, F.; Portnay, E.L.; Marshalko, S.J.; Radford, M.J.; Krumholz, H.M. The association of left ventricular ejection fraction, mortality, and cause of death in stable outpatients with heart failure. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2003, 42, 736–742.
  16. Cleland, J.G.; Hindricks, G.; Petrie, M. The shocking lack of evidence for implantable cardioverter defibrillators for heart failure; with or without cardiac resynchronization. Eur. Heart J. 2019, 40, 2128–2130.
  17. Disertori, M.; Rigoni, M.; Pace, N.; Casolo, G.; Masè, M.; Gonzini, L.; Lucci, D.; Nollo, G.; Ravelli, F. Myocardial fibrosis assessment by LGE is a powerful predictor of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in ischemic and nonischemic LV dysfunction: A meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2016, 9, 1046–1055.
  18. Halliday, B.P.; Gulati, A.; Ali, A.; Guha, K.; Newsome, S.; Arzanauskaite, M.; Vassiliou, V.S.; Lota, A.; Izgi, C.; Tayal, U.; et al. Association Between Midwall Late Gadolinium Enhancement and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients with Dilated Cardiomyopathy and Mild and Moderate Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction. Circulation 2017, 135, 2106–2115.
  19. Acosta, J.; Fernández-Armenta, J.; Borràs, R.; Anguera, I.; Bisbal, F.; Martí-Almor, J.; Tolosana, J.M.; Penela, D.; Andreu, D.; Soto-Iglesias, D.; et al. Scar Characterization to Predict Life-Threatening Arrhythmic Events and Sudden Cardiac Death in Patients with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: The GAUDI-CRT Study. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 2018, 11, 561–572.
  20. Meo, M.; Bonizzi, P.; Bear, L.R.; Cluitmans, M.; Abell, E.; Haïssaguerre, M.; Bernus, O.; Dubois, R. Body surface mapping of ventricular repolarization heterogeneity: An ex-vivo multiparameter study. Front. Physiol. 2020, 11, 933.
  21. Aung, M.; Mihir, P.; John, S.; David, H.-S. Impact of chronic total coronary occlusion revascularisation on infarct-related myocardial scars responsible for recurrent ventricular tachycardia. EuroIntervention 2021, 16, 1204–1206.
  22. van Dongen, I.M.; Kolk, M.Z.; Elias, J.; Meijborg, V.M.; Coronel, R.; de Bakker, J.M.; Claessen, B.E.; Delewi, R.; Ouweneel, D.M.; Scheunhage, E.M. The effect of revascularization of a chronic total coronary occlusion on electrocardiographic variables. A sub-study of the EXPLORE trial. J. Electrocardiol. 2018, 51, 906–912.
  23. Carluccio, E.; Biagioli, P.; Alunni, G.; Murrone, A.; Giombolini, C.; Ragni, T.; Marino, P.N.; Reboldi, G.; Ambrosio, G. Patients with Hibernating Myocardium Show Altered Left Ventricular Volumes and Shape, Which Revert after Revascularization: Evidence That Dyssynergy Might Directly Induce Cardiac Remodeling. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2006, 47, 969–977.
  24. Carluccio, E.; Biagioli, P.; Alunni, G.; Murrone, A.; Leonelli, V.; Pantano, P.; Vincenti, G.; Giombolini, C.; Ragni, T.; Reboldi, G. Effect of revascularizing viable myocardium on left ventricular diastolic function in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Eur. Heart J. 2009, 30, 1501–1509.
  25. Mashayekhi, K.; Nührenberg, T.G.; Toma, A.; Gick, M.; Ferenc, M.; Hochholzer, W.; Comberg, T.; Rothe, J.; Valina, C.M.; Löffelhardt, N. A randomized trial to assess regional left ventricular function after stent implantation in chronic total occlusion: The REVASC trial. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2018, 11, 1982–1991.
  26. Ahmad, Y.; Petrie, M.C.; Jolicoeur, E.M.; Madhavan, M.V.; Velazquez, E.J.; Moses, J.W.; Lansky, A.J.; Stone, G.W. PCI in Patients with Heart Failure: Current Evidence, Impact of Complete Revascularization, and Contemporary Techniques to Improve Outcomes. J. Soc. Cardiovasc. Angiogr. Interv. 2022, 1, 100020.
  27. McDiarmid, A.K.; Loh, H.; Nikitin, N.; Cleland, J.G.; Ball, S.G.; Greenwood, J.P.; Plein, S.; Sparrow, P. Predictive power of late gadolinium enhancement for myocardial recovery in chronic ischaemic heart failure: A HEART sub-study. ESC Heart Fail. 2014, 1, 146–153.
  28. Hamburger, R.F. Left ventricular dysfunction in ischemic heart disease. Cardiovasc. Innov. Appl. 2019, 3, 297–303.
  29. Bleeker, G.B.; Schalij, M.J.; Molhoek, S.G.; Holman, E.R.; Verwey, H.F.; Steendijk, P.; van der Wall, E.E.; Bax, J.J. Frequency of left ventricular dyssynchrony in patients with heart failure and a narrow QRS complex. Am. J. Cardiol. 2005, 95, 140–142.
  30. Panza, J.A.; Chrzanowski, L.; Bonow, R.O. Myocardial Viability Assessment Before Surgical Revascularization in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2021, 78, 1068–1077.
  31. Roemer, S.; Jaglan, A.; Santos, D.; Umland, M.; Jain, R.; Tajik, A.J.; Khandheria, B.K. The Utility of Myocardial Work in Clinical Practice. J. Am. Soc. Echocardiogr. 2021, 34, 807–818.
  32. O’Meara, E.; Mielniczuk, L.M.; Wells, G.A.; deKemp, R.A.; Klein, R.; Coyle, D.; Ardle, B.M.; Paterson, I.; White, J.A.; Arnold, M.; et al. Alternative Imaging Modalities in Ischemic Heart Failure (AIMI-HF) IMAGE HF Project I-A: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2013, 14, 218.
  33. Rizzello, V.; Poldermans, D.; Biagini, E.; Schinkel, A.F.L.; Boersma, E.; Boccanelli, A.; Marwick, T.; Roelandt, J.R.T.C.; Bax, J.J. Prognosis of patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy after coronary revascularisation: Relation to viability and improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction. Heart 2009, 95, 1273–1277.
  34. Canty, J.M.; Suzuki, G.; Banas, M.D.; Verheyen, F.; Borgers, M.; Fallavollita, J.A. Hibernating Myocardium. Circ. Res. 2004, 94, 1142–1149.
  35. Sammut, E.; Zarinabad, N.; Wesolowski, R.; Morton, G.; Chen, Z.; Sohal, M.; Carr-White, G.; Razavi, R.; Chiribiri, A. Feasibility of high-resolution quantitative perfusion analysis in patients with heart failure. J. Cardiovasc. Magn. Reson. 2015, 17, 1–11.
  36. Pasquet, A.S.; Robert, A.; D’Hondt, A.-M.; Dion, R.; Melin, J.A.; Vanoverschelde, J.-L.J. Prognostic value of myocardial ischemia and viability in patients with chronic left ventricular ischemic dysfunction. Circulation 1999, 100, 141–148.
  37. Sawada, S.G.; Lewis, S.J.; Foltz, J.; Ando, A.; Khouri, S.; Kaser, S.; Gradus-Pizlo, I.; Gill, W.; Fineberg, N.; Segar, D. Usefulness of rest and low-dose dobutamine wall motion scores in predicting survival and benefit from revascularization in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Am. J. Cardiol. 2002, 89, 811–816.
  38. Ling, L.F.; Marwick, T.H.; Flores, D.R.; Jaber, W.A.; Brunken, R.C.; Cerqueira, M.D.; Hachamovitch, R. Identification of Therapeutic Benefit from Revascularization in Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2013, 6, 363–372.
  39. Gupta, A.; Harrington, M.; Albert, C.M.; Bajaj, N.S.; Hainer, J.; Morgan, V.; Bibbo, C.F.; Bravo, P.E.; Osborne, M.T.; Dorbala, S. Myocardial scar but not ischemia is associated with defibrillator shocks and sudden cardiac death in stable patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. JACC Clin. Electrophysiol. 2018, 4, 1200–1210.
  40. Lopes, R.D.; Alexander, K.P.; Stevens, S.R.; Reynolds, H.R.; Stone, G.W.; Piña, I.L.; Rockhold, F.W.; Elghamaz, A.; Lopez-Sendon, J.L.; Farsky, P.S. Initial invasive versus conservative management of stable ischemic heart disease in patients with a history of heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction: Insights from the ISCHEMIA trial. Circulation 2020, 142, 1725–1735.
  41. Hachamovitch, R.; Soman, P. ISCHEMIA trial: Are we still fighting the last war? Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2021, 14, e012319.
  42. Cleland, J.G.F.; Pennell, D.J.; Ray, S.G.; Coats, A.J.; Macfarlane, P.W.; Murray, G.D.; Mule, J.D.; Vered, Z.; Lahiri, A. Myocardial viability as a determinant of the ejection fraction response to carvedilol in patients with heart failure (CHRISTMAS trial): Randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003, 362, 14–21.
  43. McDonagh, T.A.; Metra, M.; Adamo, M.; Gardner, R.S.; Baumbach, A.; Böhm, M.; Burri, H.; Butler, J.; Čelutkienė, J.; Chioncel, O.; et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 3599–3726.
  44. McMurray, J.; Packer, M.; Desai, A.; Gong, J.; Lefkowitz, M.; Rizkala, A.; Rouleau, J.; Shi, V.; Solomon, S.; Swedberg, K. PARADIGM-HF Investigators and Committees. 36 Drugs Targeting RAAS in the Treatment of Hypertension Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition versus enalapril in heart failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 371, 993–1004.
  45. McMurray, J.J.V.; Solomon, S.D.; Inzucchi, S.E.; Køber, L.; Kosiborod, M.N.; Martinez, F.A.; Ponikowski, P.; Sabatine, M.S.; Anand, I.S.; Bělohlávek, J.; et al. Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 381, 1995–2008.
  46. Kosiborod, M.N.; Jhund, P.S.; Docherty, K.F.; Diez, M.; Petrie, M.C.; Verma, S.; Nicolau, J.C.; Merkely, B.; Kitakaze, M.; DeMets, D.L. Effects of dapagliflozin on symptoms, function, and quality of life in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: Results from the DAPA-HF trial. Circulation 2020, 141, 90–99.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Elena Emilia Babes
,
Delia Mirela Tit
,
Alexa Florina Bungau
,
Cristiana Bustea
,
Marius Rus
,
Simona Gabriela Bungau
,
Victor Vlad Babes
View Times: 449
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 18 Jan 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    ScholarVision Creations
    Feedback