2010Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceOpen access

Cardiovascular magnetic resonance of the myocardium at risk in acute reperfused myocardial infarction: comparison of T2-weighted imaging versus the circumferential endocardial extent of late gadolinium enhancement with transmural projection

Joey F.A. Ubachs, Henrik Engblom, David Erlinge, Stefan Jovinge, Erik Hedström, Marcus Carlsson, Håkan Arheden

Open full text 47 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the situation of acute coronary occlusion, the myocardium supplied by the occluded vessel is subject to ischemia and is referred to as the myocardium at risk (MaR). Single photon emission computed tomography has previously been used for quantitative assessment of the MaR. It is, however, associated with considerable logistic challenges for employment in clinical routine. Recently, T2-weighted cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been introduced as a new method for assessing MaR several days after the acute event. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the endocardial extent of infarction as assessed by late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) CMR can also be used to quantify the MaR. Hence, we sought to assess the ability of endocardial extent of infarction by LGE CMR to predict MaR as compared to T2-weighted imaging. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with early reperfused first-time ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction underwent CMR imaging within the first week after percutaneous coronary intervention. The ability of endocardial extent of infarction by LGE CMR to assess MaR was evaluated using T2-weighted imaging as the reference method. RESULTS: MaR determined with T2-weighted imaging (34 +/- 10%) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) compared to the MaR determined with endocardial extent of infarction (23 +/- 12%). There was a weak correlation between the two methods (r2 = 0.17, p = 0.002) with a bias of -11 +/- 12%. Myocardial salvage determined with T2-weighted imaging (58 +/- 22%) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) compared to myocardial salvage determined with endocardial extent of infarction (45 +/- 23%). No MaR could be determined by endocardial extent of infarction in two patients with aborted myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the endocardial extent of infarction as assessed by LGE CMR underestimates MaR in comparison to T2-weighted imaging, especially in patients with early reperfusion and aborted myocardial infarction.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: In the situation of acute coronary occlusion, the myocardium supplied by the occluded vessel is subject to ischemia and is referred to as the myocardium at risk (MaR). Single photon emission computed tomography has previously been used for quantitative assessment of the MaR. It is, however, associated with considerable logistic challenges for employment in clinical routine. Recently, T2-weighted cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been introduced as a new method for assessing MaR several days after the acute event. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the endocardial extent of infarction as assessed by late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) CMR can also be used to quantify the MaR. Hence, we sought to assess the ability of endocardial extent of infarction by LGE CMR to predict MaR as compared to T2-weighted imaging. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with early reperfused first-time ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction underwent CMR imaging within the first week after percutaneous coronary intervention. The ability of endocardial extent of infarction by LGE CMR to assess MaR was evaluated using T2-weighted imaging as the reference method. RESULTS: MaR determined with T2-weighted imaging (34 +/- 10%) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) compared to the MaR determined with endocardial extent of infarction (23 +/- 12%). There was a weak correlation between the two methods (r2 = 0.17, p = 0.002) with a bias of -11 +/- 12%. Myocardial salvage determined with T2-weighted imaging (58 +/- 22%) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) compared to myocardial salvage determined with endocardial extent of infarction (45 +/- 23%). No MaR could be determined by endocardial extent of infarction in two patients with aborted myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the endocardial extent of infarction as assessed by LGE CMR underestimates MaR in comparison to T2-weighted imaging, especially in patients with early reperfusion and aborted myocardial infarction.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 47 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: In the situation of acute coronary occlusion, the myocardium supplied by the occluded vessel is subject to ischemia and is referred to as the myocardium at risk (MaR). Single photon emission computed tomography has previously been used for quantitative assessment of the MaR. It is, however, associated with considerable logistic challenges for employment in clinical routine. Recently, T2-weighted cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been introduced as a new method for assessing MaR several days after the acute event. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the endocardial extent of infarction as assessed by late gadolinium enhanced (LGE) CMR can also be used to quantify the MaR. Hence, we sought to assess the ability of endocardial extent of infarction by LGE CMR to predict MaR as compared to T2-weighted imaging. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with early reperfused first-time ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction underwent CMR imaging within the first week after percutaneous coronary intervention. The ability of endocardial extent of infarction by LGE CMR to assess MaR was evaluated using T2-weighted imaging as the reference method. RESULTS: MaR determined with T2-weighted imaging (34 +/- 10%) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) compared to the MaR determined with endocardial extent of infarction (23 +/- 12%). There was a weak correlation between the two methods (r2 = 0.17, p = 0.002) with a bias of -11 +/- 12%. Myocardial salvage determined with T2-weighted imaging (58 +/- 22%) was significantly higher (p < 0.001) compared to myocardial salvage determined with endocardial extent of infarction (45 +/- 23%). No MaR could be determined by endocardial extent of infarction in two patients with aborted myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that the endocardial extent of infarction as assessed by LGE CMR underestimates MaR in comparison to T2-weighted imaging, especially in patients with early reperfusion and aborted myocardial infarction.

Key concepts: Medicine, Angiology, Myocardial infarction, Cardiology, Magnetic resonance imaging, Internal medicine, Percutaneous coronary intervention, Infarction

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance of the myocardium at risk in acute reperfused myocardial infarction: comparison of T2-weighted imaging versus the circumferential endocardial extent of late gadolinium enhancement with transmural projection — Research Paper | ScholarLens