Viability testing for guiding revascularization in ischemic cardiomyopathy.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Current Opinion in Cardiology Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-07-06 DOI:10.1097/HCO.0000000000001329
Kevin Y Li, Nitish K Dhingra, Raumil Patel, Sanjog Kalra, Alireza Rabi
{"title":"Viability testing for guiding revascularization in ischemic cardiomyopathy.","authors":"Kevin Y Li, Nitish K Dhingra, Raumil Patel, Sanjog Kalra, Alireza Rabi","doi":"10.1097/HCO.0000000000001329","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>Myocardial viability testing has traditionally been used to guide revascularization decisions in ischemic cardiomyopathy on the assumption that identifying dysfunctional but viable myocardium predicts functional recovery and improved survival following revascularization. Recent trials have challenged this assumption, highlighting the need to re-evaluate the clinical role of viability testing in the context of contemporary revascularization strategies and modern guideline-directed medical therapy.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>The STICH trial and its extended follow-up demonstrated that CABG improves long-term survival independently of viability status and independently of whether ejection fraction improves, challenging the mechanistic assumption of viability-guided revascularization. REVIVED-BCIS2 showed that PCI may not improve survival benefit, even in patients selected with demonstrated viability. A prespecified imaging substudy of REVIVED identified scar burden, rather than the presence of viable myocardium, as the strongest independent predictor of adverse outcomes, reframing the prognostic question from the detection of viable tissue toward the quantification of irreversible myocardial loss.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Viability should be reconceptualized as a continuous spectrum rather than a binary construct. Scar quantification, particularly through late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), may offer greater prognostic utility than viability detection alone. A prospective randomized trial integrating contemporary imaging with modern guideline-directed medical therapy is needed to resolve the clinical role of viability-guided revascularization.</p>","PeriodicalId":55197,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Cardiology","volume":" ","pages":"452-458"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000001329","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/7/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of review: Myocardial viability testing has traditionally been used to guide revascularization decisions in ischemic cardiomyopathy on the assumption that identifying dysfunctional but viable myocardium predicts functional recovery and improved survival following revascularization. Recent trials have challenged this assumption, highlighting the need to re-evaluate the clinical role of viability testing in the context of contemporary revascularization strategies and modern guideline-directed medical therapy.

Recent findings: The STICH trial and its extended follow-up demonstrated that CABG improves long-term survival independently of viability status and independently of whether ejection fraction improves, challenging the mechanistic assumption of viability-guided revascularization. REVIVED-BCIS2 showed that PCI may not improve survival benefit, even in patients selected with demonstrated viability. A prespecified imaging substudy of REVIVED identified scar burden, rather than the presence of viable myocardium, as the strongest independent predictor of adverse outcomes, reframing the prognostic question from the detection of viable tissue toward the quantification of irreversible myocardial loss.

Summary: Viability should be reconceptualized as a continuous spectrum rather than a binary construct. Scar quantification, particularly through late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), may offer greater prognostic utility than viability detection alone. A prospective randomized trial integrating contemporary imaging with modern guideline-directed medical therapy is needed to resolve the clinical role of viability-guided revascularization.

指导缺血性心肌病血运重建的活力试验。
回顾目的:心肌活力测试传统上被用于指导缺血性心肌病的血运重建决策,假设识别功能失调但存活的心肌可以预测血运重建后的功能恢复和生存率的提高。最近的试验挑战了这一假设,强调需要重新评估生存能力测试在当代血运重建策略和现代指导医学治疗背景下的临床作用。最近的发现:STICH试验及其延长的随访表明,CABG改善了长期生存,独立于生存能力状态和射血分数是否改善,挑战了生存能力引导血运重建的机制假设。REVIVED-BCIS2显示PCI可能不能提高生存获益,即使在已证明生存能力的患者中也是如此。一项预先指定的再生成像亚研究确定了疤痕负担,而不是存活心肌的存在,作为不良结果的最强独立预测因子,将预后问题从存活组织的检测重新定义为不可逆心肌损失的量化。总结:生存能力应该被重新定义为一个连续的光谱,而不是一个二元结构。疤痕量化,特别是通过晚期钆增强心脏磁共振(CMR),可能比单独的生存能力检测提供更大的预后效用。需要一项前瞻性随机试验,将当代影像学与现代指导医学治疗相结合,以解决活力引导的血运重建术的临床作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Current Opinion in Cardiology
Current Opinion in Cardiology 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
78
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​​​​Current Opinion in Cardiology is a bimonthly publication offering a unique and wide ranging perspective on the key developments in the field. Each issue features hand-picked review articles from our team of expert editors. With fourteen disciplines published across the year – including arrhythmias, molecular genetics, HDL cholesterol and clinical trials – every issue also contains annotated reference detailing the merits of the most important papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书