The influence of arm positions on mechanical dyssynchrony measured by gated myocardial perfusion imaging

BACKGROUND: In routine procedures, patient’s arms are positioned above their heads to avoid potential attenuation artifacts and reduced image quality during gated myocardial perfusion imaging (G-MPI). However, it is difficult to achieve this action in the acute period following pacemaker implantation. This study aimed to explore the influence of arm positioning on myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in different types of heart disease. METHODS: This study was conducted retrospectively. A total of 123 patients were enrolled and underwent resting G-MPI using a standard protocol with arms positioned above their heads and again with their arms at their sides. All individuals were divided into 3 groups: the normal group, the obstructive coronary artery disease (O-CAD) group, and the dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) group. The G-MPI data were measured by QGS software and Emory Reconstruction Toolbox, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), end-diastolic volume (EDV), end-systolic volume (ESV), extent, total perfusion deficit (TPD), summed rest score (SRS), scar burden, phase standard deviation (SD), and phase histogram bandwidth (BW). RESULTS: In total, extent, TPD, EDV, ESV, LVEF, systolic SD, systolic BW, diastolic SD, and diastolic BW were all significantly different between the 2 arm positions (all P<0.01). On the Bland-Altman analysis, both EDV and ESV with the arm-down position were significantly underestimated (P<0.001). Meanwhile, TPD, extent, and LVEF with the arm-down position were significantly overestimated (P<0.05). Systolic SD, systolic BW, diastolic SD, and diastolic BW were systematically overestimated (P<0.001). In the DCM group (n=52), EDV, ESV, systolic SD, systolic BW, diastolic SD, and diastolic BW were identified as significantly different by the paired t-test between the 2 arm positions (P<0.05). In the O-CAD group (n=32), scar burden, ESV, LVEF, and diastolic BW were significantly different between the 2 arm positions (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Systolic and diastolic dyssynchrony parameters and most left ventricular (LV) functional parameters were significantly influenced by arm position in both normal individuals and patients with heart failure (HF) with different pathophysiologies. More attention should be given to LV dyssynchrony data during clinical evaluation of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation procedure.