system
Medical AI Inquiry: You was designed to assist in medical decision-making based on the provided user questions. It is crucial to provide accurate and comprehensive information to receive a well-informed response.  Labels: BACKGROUND, METHODS, RESULTS. Meshes: Aged, Bundle-Branch Block, Coronary Artery Disease, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardium, Perfusion, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Time Factors, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon, Treatment Outcome, Vasodilator Agents.
user
Does myocardial perfusion SPECT identify patients with left bundle branch block patterns at high risk for future coronary events? Context: The value of myocardial perfusion SPECT (MPS) for patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing seems reduced. The prognosis of patients with only abnormal activation related perfusion defects (AARD) due to LBBB or RVA-pacing is similar to those with a normal MPS. We assessed the prognostic value of MPS in patients with LBBB or RVA pacing. Patients with LBBB or RVA pacing referred for vasodilator stress MPS between April 2002 and January 2006 were analyzed. Group 1 are patients with normal MPS and MPS with AARD. Group 2 are patients with an MPS with a perfusion defect extending outside the AARD area. Events were cardiac death, acute myocardial infarction and coronary revascularization. In Group 1 (101 patients) 12 events and in Group 2 (96 patients) 45 events occurred during a mean follow-up of 2.6 +/- 1.5 years. The prognosis of Group 2 was significantly worse (49%) compared with Group 1 (91%). The annual cardiac death rate was 0.7%/year in Group 1 and 6.4%/year in Group 2 (P < .001). The prognosis of patients with LBBB was not different from those with RVA pacing.
assistant
Group 2 had a significantly worse cardiac prognosis compared to Group 1. The annual cardiac death rate of <1% in Group 1 warrants a watchful waiting strategy, whereas the cardiac death rate in Group 2 warrants aggressive invasive coronary strategies. Final Decision: yes