Myocardial Viability Testing Research Articles

Surgical Management of Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Patients with Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Is It Time to Reconsider Revascularization Surgery?

Ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction are a specific group of patients with poor surgical outcomes. There are few surgical treatment options in practice for the treatment of these patients such as heart transplantation, coronary artery bypass surgery, surgical ventricular restoration, etc. Despite multiple treatment options, there are no explicit clinical guidelines available to guide surgeons in choosing the most appropriate option and ensuring that the specific patient can benefit from the selected surgical treatment. Heart transplantation is the gold standard treatment for ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, but it is limited to very few highly equipped centers around the world due to donor shortages, complex perioperative and surgical management, and limited technological and human resources. It is evident from some studies that heart transplant-eligible candidates can benefit from alternative surgical options such as coronary artery bypass surgery alone or combined with surgical ventricular restoration. Therefore, alternative surgical options that are used for most of the population, especially in developing and underdeveloped countries, need to be discussed to improve their outcomes. A challenge in the recent era which has yet to find a solution is to determine which heart transplant candidate can benefit from simple revascularization compared to a complex heart transplantation procedure. Myocardial viability testing was one of the most important determinants in deciding whether a patient should undergo revascularization, but its role in guiding appropriate surgical options has been challenged. This review aims to discuss the available surgical management options and their long-term outcomes for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, which will eventually help surgeons when choosing a surgical procedure.

Viability and Outcomes With Revascularization or Medical Therapy in Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction

In the Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED-BCIS2) trial, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not improve outcomes for patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Whether myocardial viability testing had prognostic utility for these patients or identified a subpopulation who may benefit from PCI remained unclear. To determine the effect of the extent of viable and nonviable myocardium on the effectiveness of PCI, prognosis, and improvement in left ventricular function. Prospective open-label randomized clinical trial recruiting between August 28, 2013, and March 19, 2020, with a median follow-up of 3.4 years (IQR, 2.3-5.0 years). A total of 40 secondary and tertiary care centers in the United Kingdom were included. Of 700 randomly assigned patients, 610 with left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 35%, extensive coronary artery disease, and evidence of viability in at least 4 myocardial segments that were dysfunctional at rest and who underwent blinded core laboratory viability characterization were included. Data analysis was conducted from March 31, 2022, to May 1, 2023. Percutaneous coronary intervention in addition to optimal medical therapy. Blinded core laboratory analysis was performed of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging scans and dobutamine stress echocardiograms to quantify the extent of viable and nonviable myocardium, expressed as an absolute percentage of left ventricular mass. The primary outcome of this subgroup analysis was the composite of all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and improved left ventricular function at 6 months. The mean (SD) age of the participants was 69.3 (9.0) years. In the PCI group, 258 (87%) were male, and in the optimal medical therapy group, 277 (88%) were male. The primary outcome occurred in 107 of 295 participants assigned to PCI and 114 of 315 participants assigned to optimal medical therapy alone. There was no interaction between the extent of viable or nonviable myocardium and the effect of PCI on the primary or any secondary outcome. Across the study population, the extent of viable myocardium was not associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio per 10% increase, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.04) or any secondary outcome. The extent of nonviable myocardium was associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and improvement in left ventricular function. This study found that viability testing does not identify patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who benefit from PCI. The extent of nonviable myocardium, but not the extent of viable myocardium, is associated with event-free survival and likelihood of improvement of left ventricular function. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01920048.

Myocardial Revascularization in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: For Whom and How.

Background Myocardial revascularization has been advocated to improve myocardial function and prognosis in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). We discuss the evidence for revascularization in patients with ICM and the role of ischemia and viability detection in guiding treatment. Methods and Results We searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the prognostic impact of revascularization in ICM and the value of viability imaging for patient management. Out of 1397 publications, 4 randomized controlled trials were included, enrolling 2480 patients. Three trials (HEART [Heart Failure Revascularisation Trial], STICH [Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure], and REVIVED [REVascularization for Ischemic VEntricular Dysfunction]-BCIS2) randomized patients to revascularization or optimal medical therapy. HEART was stopped prematurely without showing any significant difference between treatment strategies. STICH showed a 16% lower mortality with bypass surgery compared with optimal medical therapy at a median follow-up of 9.8 years. However, neither the presence/extent of left ventricle viability nor ischemia interacted with treatment outcomes. REVIVED-BCIS2 showed no difference in the primary end point between percutaneous revascularization or optimal medical therapy. PARR-2 (Positron Emission Tomography and Recovery Following Revascularization) randomized patients to imaging-guided revascularization versus standard care, with neutral results overall. Information regarding the consistency of patient management with viability testing results was available in ≈65% of patients (n=1623). No difference in survival was revealed according to adherence or no adherence to viability imaging. Conclusions In ICM, the largest randomized controlled trial, STICH, suggests that surgical revascularization improves patients' prognosis at long-term follow-up, whereas evidence supports no benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention. Data from randomized controlled trials do not support myocardial ischemia or viability testing for treatment guidance. We propose an algorithm for the workup of patients with ICM considering clinical presentation, imaging results, and surgical risk.

Myocardial Viability Testing in the Management of Ischemic Heart Failure.

Although major advances have occurred lately in medical therapy, ischemic heart failure remains an important cause of death and disability. Viable myocardium represents a cause of reversible ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Coronary revascularization may improve left ventricular function and prognosis in patients with viable myocardium. Although patients with impaired left ventricular function and multi-vessel coronary artery disease benefit the most from revascularization, they are at high risk of complications related to revascularization procedure. An important element in selecting the patients for myocardial revascularization is the presence of the viable myocardium. Multiple imaging modalities can assess myocardial viability and predict functional improvement after revascularization, with dobutamine stress echocardiography, nuclear imaging tests and magnetic resonance imaging being the most frequently used. However, the role of myocardial viability testing in the management of patients with ischemic heart failure is still controversial due to the failure of randomized controlled trials of revascularization to reveal clear benefits of viability testing. This review summarizes the current knowledge regarding the concept of viable myocardium, depicts the role and tools for viability testing, discusses the research involving this topic and the controversies related to the utility of myocardial viability testing and provides a patient-centered approach for clinical practice.

Myocardial viability testing: all STICHed up, or about to be REVIVED?

Patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction frequently undergo myocardial viability testing. The historical model presumes that those who have extensive areas of dysfunctional-yet-viable myocardium derive particular benefit from revascularization, whilst those without extensive viability do not. These suppositions rely on the theory of hibernation and are based on data of low quality: taking a dogmatic approach may therefore lead to patients being refused appropriate, prognostically important treatment. Recent data from a sub-study of the randomized STICH trial challenges these historical concepts, as the volume of viable myocardium failed to predict the effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting. Should the Heart Team now abandon viability testing, or are new paradigms needed in the way we interpret viability? This state-of-the-art review critically examines the evidence base for viability testing, focusing in particular on the presumed interactions between viability, functional recovery, revascularization and prognosis which underly the traditional model. We consider whether viability should relate solely to dysfunctional myocardium or be considered more broadly and explore wider uses of viability testingoutside of revascularization decision-making. Finally, we look forward to ongoing and future randomized trials, which will shape evidence-based clinical practice in the future.

Prognostic Value of Quantitative Metrics From Positron Emission Tomography in Ischemic Heart Failure

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic and clinical value of quantitative positron emission tomographic (PET) metrics in patients with ischemic heart failure. BackgroundAlthough myocardial flow reserve (MFR) is a strong predictor of cardiac risk in patients without heart failure, it is unknown whether quantitative PET metrics improve risk stratification in patients with ischemic heart failure. MethodsThe study included 254 patients referred for stress and rest myocardial perfusion imaging and viability testing using PET. Major adverse cardiac event(s) (MACE) consisted of death, resuscitated sudden cardiac death, heart transplantation, acute coronary syndrome, hospitalization for heart failure, and late revascularization. ResultsMACE occurred in 170 patients (67%) during a median follow-up of 3.3 years. In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model including multiple quantitative PET metrics, only MFR predicted MACE significantly (p = 0.013). Beyond age, symptom severity, diabetes mellitus, previous myocardial infarction or revascularization, 3-vessel disease, renal insufficiency, ejection fraction, as well as presence and burden of ischemia, scar, and hibernating myocardium, MFR was strongly associated with MACE (adjusted hazard ratio per increase in MFR by 1: 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.45 to 0.91). Incorporation of MFR into a risk assessment model incrementally improved the prediction of MACE (likelihood ratio chi-square test [16] = 48.61 vs. chi-square test [15] = 39.20; p = 0.002). ConclusionsIn this retrospective analysis of a single-center cohort, quantitative PET metrics of myocardial blood flow all improved risk stratification in patients with ischemic heart failure. However, in a hypothesis-generating analysis, MFR appears modestly superior to the other metrics as a prognostic index.

Multicenter experience with percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusion in Korean population: analysis of the Korean nationwide multicenter chronic total occlusion registry.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusion (CTO) remains challenging because of limited success and higher target vessel failure rates. Detailed safety and efficacy data for CTO-PCI from a multicenter real-world Korean registry are limited. Since May 2007, the Korean multicenter retrospective CTO registry has enrolled 3271 patients who underwent CTO-PCI at 26 major medical centers. Baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics and 12-month major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates after PCI were retrospectively collected. Baseline cardiovascular risk factors included: male sex, 73.8%; prior myocardial infarction (MI), 14.8%; prior PCI, 26.6%; hypertension, 62.3%; diabetes mellitus, 34.8%; dyslipidemia, 33.3%; and current smoker, 30.9%. Pre-PCI myocardial viability testing was performed in 23.6% of patients and pre-PCI cardiac computed tomography (CT) in 17.6%. CTO arterial lesions were distributed as follows: right coronary, 41.0%; left anterior descending, 40.0%; left circumflex, 22.5%; and left main, 0.4%. Unfavorable lesion morphology was detected by angiography in 38.1%. Intravascular ultrasound guidance and the retrograde approach were utilized in 23.6 and 3.1% of CTO-PCI procedures, respectively. More than 75% of patients received drug-eluting stents (sirolimus-eluting, 26.5%; paclitaxel-eluting, 23.8%; zotarolimus-eluting, 23.4%; everolimus-eluting, 11.0%; and others, 4.0%). The overall success rate was 81.6% (2672/3271 patients). Twelve-month event rates were: total mortality, 2.4%; any MI, 0.7%; target lesion revascularization, 4.4%; target vessel revascularization, 6.7%; and total MACE, 9.4%. Twelve-month success rates, safety profiles, and cumulative clinical outcomes of Korean CTO patients were favorable post-PCI. Long-term follow-up of larger study populations is necessary to validate our findings.

Limited prognostic value of myocardial viability assessment in patients with coronary artery diseases and severe left ventricular dysfunction.

Myocardial viability assessment is typically performed in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and severe left ventricular (LV) dysfunction to identify those who might benefit from revascularization and assist in decision making process. However, the prognostic value of myocardial viability testing remains a debating issue. Positron Emission Tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18FDG-PET) was performed in 81 patients with ischemic LV dysfunction [ejection fraction (EF) ≤35%] for myocardial viability assessment prior to coronary artery bypass surgery. Fifty-three of them received finally coronary artery bypass grafting and were divided into two groups according to the extent of myocardial scar: one group with scar burden ≥10% (n=30) and the other with scar burden <10% (n=23). The remaining patients were contraindicated for CABG and received optimal medical treatment (OMT, n=28). All patients were followed up and the primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and the secondary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). 18FDG-PET revealed a different profile of myocardial viability among three groups with respect to the extent of myocardial scar, the hibernating myocardium (both P<0.01), some echocardiographic parameters such as left ventricular diastolic dimension (LVDD) and EF were also significantly different (both P<0.05). Nevertheless, the baseline prevalence of comorbidities and functional classifications were comparable. The per-procedural parameters were not significantly different between two CABG groups. In a median follow-up time of 32 months, Kaplan Meier analysis uncovered no significant difference in terms of overall survival (P=0.74) and MACCE-free survival (P=0.66) among three groups. Myocardial viability assessment using 18FDG-PET is of limited prognostic value in patients with CAD and severe LV dysfunction. In patients with substantial myocardial scar burden despite the existence of considerable hibernating myocardium, functional recovery following surgical revascularization is not necessarily translated to survival benefits.

Assessment of Myocardial Viability by Echocardiography

Clinical application of myocardial viability testing to improve patient outcome is still a concept in evaluation. The various echocardiographic, nuclear, and magnetic resonance imaging techniques of assessment of myocardial viability evaluate different aspects of ischemic pathophysiology and have certain distinct advantages and limitations. A clinical algorithm combining “anatomic” and “flow/function” imaging gives more specific result of myocardial viability. Different modalities of echocardiography form the basic and cost-effective tools to assess the anatomic and functional aspect of viability.

低心機能例に対する外科的血行再建

低心機能例に対する外科的血行再建

Revascularization in Heart Failure in the Post-STICH Era

Left ventricular (LV) dysfunction caused by ischemia secondary to coronary artery disease results not only from cardiac myocyte death but also from stunning and hibernation, which are potentially reversible phenomena. Myocardial viability testing is often used in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy to predict recovery of contractile function after revascularization. Although several observational studies have supported the use of viability testing, the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart failure (STICH) viability substudy challenged its role in clinical decision-making, as viability testing in this study did not predict differential outcomes based on treatment type, and there was a trend toward increased survival in patients with no viability who underwent revascularization. However, the results of the STICH trial have caused controversy because of limitations in study design and implementation. Randomized controlled trials using high-resolution modalities such as positron emission tomography or delayed hyperenhancement cardiac magnetic resonance are needed to determine the incremental benefits that revascularization may afford based on myocardial viability.

Cardiac MR for the Assessment of Myocardial Viability

This article focuses on delayed contrast enhanced MRI (DE-MRI) to assess myocardial viability. We start by discussing previous literature that evaluated the potential importance of myocardial viability testing and follow up with the more recent Surgical Treatment for Heart Disease Trial (STICH) trial results. We then provide an overview of the basic concepts and technical aspects of the current DE-MRI technique and review the initial studies demonstrating that DE-MRI before coronary revascularization can predict functional improvement. Finally, we use DE-MRI as a paradigm to discuss physiological insights into viability assessment and examine common assumptions in the metrics used to evaluate viability techniques.

Myocardial Viability Testing and the Effect of Early Intervention in Patients With Advanced Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

Myocardial Viability Testing and the Effect of Early Intervention in Patients With Advanced Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

Prognostic role of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging in myocardial viability

Cardiac imaging is evolving rapidly. Appropriate use of this technology could reduce morbidity and mortality, but inappropriate use could have a significant financial burden. Single-photon emission computed tomography imaging is widely available. This review summarizes the clinical utility and limitations of the prognostic role of single-photon emission computed tomography imaging for myocardial viability in patients with coronary artery disease and left-ventricular dysfunction. 201Tl single-photon emission computed tomography, 99mTc single-photon emission computed tomography with sestamibi or tetrofosmin, and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose single-photon emission computed tomography are validated tools for assessing myocardial viability. These techniques have a very similar predictive value in determining regional and global response to revascularization. 201Tl single-photon emission computed tomography viability studies are predictive of reverse left-ventricular remodeling, symptom improvement, and patient outcome after revascularization. Combination imaging with dual-isotope simultaneous acquisition single-photon emission computed tomography or positron-emission tomography/single-photon emission computed tomography may improve the positive and negative predictive values of single-photon emission computed tomography-based viability studies. Single-photon emission computed tomography-based myocardial viability testing is an important diagnostic modality due to widespread availability and reasonably good sensitivity and specificity for detecting viable myocardium and predicting clinical and functional responses to revascularization. In the future single-photon emission computed tomography viability techniques may have a prognostic role in predicting responses to cardiac resynchronization therapy and evaluating myocardial stem-cell transplantation.

Limited Flow Reserve in Non-Obstructed Bypass Grafts Supplying Infarcted Myocardium: Implications for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging Protocols

We evaluated flow reserve in non-obstructed bypass grafts supplying infarcted and noninfarcted myocardium. Bypass grafts were examined by phase-contrast flow measurements and myocardial viability was assessed with late enhancement technique. Flow reserve was higher in bypasses supplying normal myocardium compared to those supplying infarcted myocardium (2.9 vs. 1.5, p<.0001). This difference remained significant after adjusting for co-variables. Bypass grafts supplying infarcted myocardium were more likely to have lower flow reserve than those supplying normal myocardium (flow reserve < or =2, 84% vs 18%, p = .0003). Flow reserve is reduced in non-stenosed bypasses supplying infarcted myocardium, likely due to altered microcirculation. Thus, cardiovascular magnetic resonance based bypass assessment must include myocardial viability testing.

Section 13: Evaluation and Therapy for Heart Failure in the Setting of Ischemic Heart Disease

Section 13: Evaluation and Therapy for Heart Failure in the Setting of Ischemic Heart Disease

Issue Highlights

HomeCirculationVol. 113, No. 2Issue Highlights Free AccessIn BriefPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessIn BriefPDF/EPUBIssue Highlights Originally published17 Jan 2006https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.113.2.177Circulation. 2006;113:177LONG-TERM ADHERENCE TO EVIDENCE-BASED SECONDARY PREVENTION THERAPIES IN CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE, by Newby et al.Many studies have focused on the underuse of various secondary prevention treatments at hospital discharge and, as a result, performance is improving. However, our knowledge about the long-term use of these interventions is much more limited because of substantial challenges in the collection of outpatient data. To address this issue, Duke investigators have made use of the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease, which has been augmented with follow-up information that includes self-reported medications. The study includes 31 750 patients with coronary artery disease confirmed by catheterization who were seen at Duke from 1995 through 2002. The findings reveal some remarkable insights about the consistent use rates of important secondary prevention therapies. See p 203.MYOCARDIAL VIABILITY TESTING AND THE EFFECT OF EARLY INTERVENTION IN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED LEFT VENTRICULAR SYSTOLIC DYSFUNCTION, by Tarakji et al.Controversy remains regarding the role of revascularization in patients with heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction. Observational studies suggest that such patients with preserved viability and ischemia benefit from revascularization, but definitive recommendations are constrained by limitations and biases inherent in cohort analyses. In this issue of Circulation, Tarakji and colleagues report on patients referred for positron-emission tomography imaging of viability during consideration of revascularization. Propensity scoring was used to match patients who underwent revascularization to a group that was treated medically. Revascularization was associated with a 48% reduction in the risk of mortality over 3 years. Of interest, the modeled outcomes suggested only minor influence of the extent of viability on the effect of revascularization. Short of a full randomized trial, these data provide the most robust analysis to date of the potential role of revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. In an accompanying editorial, Gibbons and colleagues (p 180) place these results in context of previous observational studies and ongoing randomized trials, and examine the strengths and weaknesses of such an analytic approach. See p 230.RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF A NONPOLYMER-BASED RAPAMYCIN-ELUTING STENT VERSUS A POLYMER-BASED PACLITAXEL-ELUTING STENT FOR THE REDUCTION OF LATE LUMEN LOSS, by Mehilli et al.Although drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce restenosis and the need for repeat revascularization procedures, concerns over the long-term safety of these devices persist. DES utilize polymers to deliver antirestenotic drugs. The possibility that polymers may promote inflammatory and thrombotic processes and adversely affect vessel wall healing has led to the development of polymer-free stents with a microporous surface as an alternative for local drug delivery. The ISAR-TEST (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Restenosis- Test Equivalence Between 2 Drug-Eluting Stents Trial) investigators studied whether polymer-free stents coated in the cardiac catheterization laboratory with 2% rapamycin solution are not inferior to polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents for the prevention of restenosis. They showed no significant differences in in-stent late lumen loss, angiographic restenosis, or target lesion revascularization rates between the nonpolymer rapamycin-stent and polymer paclitaxel-stent groups. Additional studies are necessary to determine the impact of this non-polymer stent system on long term safety end points. See p 273.Visit http://www.circ.ahajournals.org:Clinician UpdateVenous Thromboembolism in Children. See p e12.Images in Cardiovascular MedicineCardiac Teratoma in a Newborn With Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Obstruction. See p e17. Download figureDownload PowerPointNoninvasive Characterization of Left Atrial Mass. See p e19.Architecture of Intracoronary Thrombi in ST-Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction: Time Makes the Difference. See p e21.Book ReviewSee p e24.CorrespondenceSee p e25. Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails January 17, 2006Vol 113, Issue 2 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.113.2.177 Originally publishedJanuary 17, 2006 PDF download Advertisement

Myocardial Viability Testing and the Effect of Early Intervention in Patients With Advanced Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction

The clinical value of revascularization and other procedures in patients with severe systolic heart failure is unclear. It has been suggested that assessing ischemia and viability by positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) imaging may identify patients for whom revascularization may lead to improved survival. We performed a propensity analysis to determine whether there might be a survival advantage from revascularization. We analyzed the survival of 765 consecutive patients (age 64+/-11 years, 80% men) with advanced left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction < or =35%) and without significant valvular heart disease who underwent PET/FDG study at the Cleveland Clinic between 1997 and 2002. Early intervention was defined as any cardiac intervention (surgical or percutaneous) within the first 6 months of the PET/FDG study. In the entire cohort, 230 patients (30%) underwent early intervention (188 [25%] had open heart surgery, most commonly coronary artery bypass grafting, and 42 [5%] had percutaneous revascularization); 535 (70%) were treated medically. Using 39 demographic, clinical and PET/FDG variables, we were able to propensity-match 153 of the 230 patients with 153 patients who did not undergo early intervention. Among the propensity-matched group, there were 84 deaths during a median of 3 years follow-up. Early intervention was associated with a markedly lower risk of death (3-year mortality rate of 15% versus 35%, propensity adjusted hazard ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.81, P=0.0004). Among systolic heart failure patients referred for PET/FDG, early intervention may be associated with improved survival irrespective of the degree of viability.

Risk factors and myocardial viability testing with perfusion scintigraphy may imply the treatment of the Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction(ILVD)-the results from the registry long-term follow-up

Risk factors and myocardial viability testing with perfusion scintigraphy may imply the treatment of the Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction(ILVD)-the results from the registry long-term follow-up

Myocardial viability testing before CABG – Correlation of MRI scoring and graft flow

Objectives: The question whether scarred myocardial tissue takes profit from coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and is capable of remodelling remains controversial. In the present study we determined graft flow in relation to the viability of the myocardium in patients with severely compromised left ventricular function (LVEF).