Role of myocardial contrast echocardiography during nonsurgical septal reduction therapy for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy
Sherif F. Nagueh, MDa,
Nasser M. Lakkis, MDa,
Zuo-Xiang He, MDa,
Katherine J. Middleton, RCTa,
Donna Killip, RNa,
William A. Zoghbi, MD, FACCa,
Miguel A. Quiñones, MD, FACCa,
Robert Roberts, MD, FACCa,
Mario S. Verani, MD, FACCa,
Neal S. Kleiman, MD, FACCa and
William H. Spencer, III, MD, FACCa
a Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
View larger version (74K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 1 MCE of the septum at baseline and after injection of sonicated albumin (Contrast) and ethanol. Injections were into the first septal perforator. The contrast effect with ethanol has the same distribution as that of the sonicated albumin.
|
|
View larger version (64K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 2 MCE of the septum at baseline and after injection of sonicated albumin (Contrast) and ethanol in another patient. Injection was into the second septal perforator. Note the opacification of the entire septal thickness with both contrast agents.
|
|
View larger version (18K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 3 MCE risk area versus peak CK levels in 29 study patients.
|
|
View larger version (17K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 4 MCE risk area versus SPECT perfusion defects in 23 study patients.
|
|
View larger version (13K):
[in a new window]
|
Figure 5 Plot of the difference between SPECT and MCE perfusion defects (PD) versus the average of both observations.
|
|
|
