Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:11266191rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0030705lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11266191lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0027051lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11266191lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0599766lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11266191lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0681842lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11266191lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0872169lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11266191lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0949700lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11266191lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0302995lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:issue3lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:dateCreated2001-3-26lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:abstractTextThe present study investigated the agreement between low-dose dobutamine stress echocardiography (LDDSE) and fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) and compared each technique's ability to detect myocardial viability and predict functional recovery in 30 patients. All patients underwent revascularization, followed by echocardiography 5+/-3 months. Of the 390 segments analyzed by echocardiography before revascularization, 110 (28%) had abnormal wall motion. LDDSE showed viability in 66 sites of the 110 dyssynergic segments and 58 of these viable segments recovered their wall motion. With FDG-PET, 78 of the 110 dyssynergic segments were diagnosed as viable and 62 of these showed improvement of the wall motion. The sensitivities for LDDSE and FDG-PET to assess functional recovery were 84% and 90%, respectively; specificities were 80% and 64%, respectively. Positive predictive values for LDDSE and FDG-PET were 88% and 79%; negative predictive values were 75% and 78%, respectively. Both methods had good sensitivity for detecting improvement in regional function after revascularization, but LDDSE had a higher specificity for detecting viability and a better positive predictive value for left ventricular functional recovery.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:monthMarlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:issn0047-1828lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:authorpubmed-author:WatanabeHHlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:authorpubmed-author:TakeuchiKKlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MuroTTlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:authorpubmed-author:YamagishiHHlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:authorpubmed-author:TaniTTlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:authorpubmed-author:YoshikawaJJlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:authorpubmed-author:AkiokaKKlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:authorpubmed-author:TeragakiMMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:volume65lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:pagination177-81lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:11266191...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:year2001lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:articleTitlePrediction of functional recovery in patients with myocardial infarction after revascularization--comparison of low-dose dobutamine stress echocardiography with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:affiliationFirst Department of Internal Medicine, Osaka City University Medical School, Osaka, Japan.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:publicationTypeClinical Triallld:pubmed
pubmed-article:11266191pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed