JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Coll Cardiol, 1985; 6:825-830
© 1985 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaul, S
Right arrow Articles by Weyman, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kaul, S
Right arrow Articles by Weyman, A.

Contrast echocardiography in acute myocardial ischemia. II. The effect of site of injection of contrast agent on the estimation of area at risk for necrosis after coronary occlusion

S Kaul, LD Gillam, and AE Weyman

Myocardial contrast echocardiography has been shown to accurately assess the area at risk for necrosis after acute coronary occlusion in the experimental model. The area at risk as determined by this method, however, has been defined in different ways depending on the model used. Some investigators have injected the contrast agent proximal to the site of coronary occlusion (left main coronary artery or aorta) and defined the area at risk as the segment of myocardium not showing a contrast effect (negative risk area). Others have injected the contrast agent directly into the occluded vessel and have defined the area at risk as that showing contrast enhancement (positive risk area). To evaluate whether the areas at risk determined by these two techniques are identical, six open chest dogs were studied using both methods. The area at risk was slightly but significantly larger when the contrast agent was injected into the occluded vessel than when it was injected proximally into the left main coronary artery (4.98 +/- 1.69 versus 3.97 +/- 1.27 cm2, p less than 0.01). It is concluded that the site of injection of the contrast agent significantly influences the determination of area at risk. Therefore, data obtained by the two techniques should not be used interchangeably, and in a given study the area at risk should be measured consistently using one technique.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CirculationHome page
S. Kaul
Myocardial Contrast Echocardiography : 15 Years of Research and Development
Circulation, November 18, 1997; 96(10): 3745 - 3760.
[Full Text]


Home page
CirculationHome page
T. Asanuma, K. Tanabe, K. Ochiai, H. Yoshitomi, K. Nakamura, Y. Murakami, K. Sano, T. Shimada, R. Murakami, S. Morioka, et al.
Relationship Between Progressive Microvascular Damage and Intramyocardial Hemorrhage in Patients With Reperfused Anterior Myocardial Infarction : Myocardial Contrast Echocardiographic Study
Circulation, July 15, 1997; 96(2): 448 - 453.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
CirculationHome page
H. Ito, K. Iwakura, H. Oh, T. Masuyama, M. Hori, Y. Higashino, K. Fujii, and T. Minamino
Temporal Changes in Myocardial Perfusion Patterns in Patients With Reperfused Anterior Wall Myocardial Infarction : Their Relation to Myocardial Viability
Circulation, February 1, 1995; 91(3): 656 - 662.
[Abstract] [Full Text]




HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
Copyright © 1985 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.