OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the qualitative response to low-dose dobutamine by echocardiography (DSE) with the quantitative response of magnetic resonance myocardial tagging (DMRT) in the prediction and evaluation of functional improvement after reperfused myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: Twenty-two patients with a reperfused first MI (aged 51 +/- 2 years, 20 male, 13 anterior MI) were studied. On day 3 +/- 1 after MI, patients underwent both DSE and DMRT at baseline and during infusion of 5 microg/kg/min and 10 microg/kg/min of dobutamine. The patients returned at week 8 +/- 1 for follow-up echocardiogram and MRT at rest. Two experienced observers interpreted the DSE for the presence of contractile reserve and functional improvement in dysfunctional segments. By DMRT, a 5% increase in percent intramyocardial circumferential shortening at peak response to dobutamine was defined as evidence of contractile reserve. Functional improvement by echocardiography was defined as the gold standard. RESULTS: Ejection fraction improved from 46% +/- 10% at week 1 to 51% +/- 12% at week 8 (P <.001) in the patients. Sixty-seven transmural segments with baseline dysfunction matched between imaging modalities by location were studied. For 51 (76%) of the segments, echocardiography and MR tagging were concordant in the assessment of functional improvement (kappa value 0.52). Twenty-nine segments (43%) demonstrated improvement by echocardiography, whereas 33 segments (49%) improved by MR tagging. With improvement of function by echocardiography as gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of DMRT for prediction of functional improvement was 86% and 69%, respectively, with an overall accuracy of 76%. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of DSE was 86%, 87%, and 85%, respectively. Overall accuracy was similar between techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Both DSMRT and DSE are sensitive and accurate techniques for predicting functional improvement after reperfused MI.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare the qualitative response to low-dose dobutamine by echocardiography (DSE) with the quantitative response of magnetic resonance myocardial tagging (DMRT) in the prediction and evaluation of functional improvement after reperfused myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: Twenty-two patients with a reperfused first MI (aged 51 +/- 2 years, 20 male, 13 anterior MI) were studied. On day 3 +/- 1 after MI, patients underwent both DSE and DMRT at baseline and during infusion of 5 microg/kg/min and 10 microg/kg/min of dobutamine. The patients returned at week 8 +/- 1 for follow-up echocardiogram and MRT at rest. Two experienced observers interpreted the DSE for the presence of contractile reserve and functional improvement in dysfunctional segments. By DMRT, a 5% increase in percent intramyocardial circumferential shortening at peak response to dobutamine was defined as evidence of contractile reserve. Functional improvement by echocardiography was defined as the gold standard. RESULTS: Ejection fraction improved from 46% +/- 10% at week 1 to 51% +/- 12% at week 8 (P <.001) in the patients. Sixty-seven transmural segments with baseline dysfunction matched between imaging modalities by location were studied. For 51 (76%) of the segments, echocardiography and MR tagging were concordant in the assessment of functional improvement (kappa value 0.52). Twenty-nine segments (43%) demonstrated improvement by echocardiography, whereas 33 segments (49%) improved by MR tagging. With improvement of function by echocardiography as gold standard, the sensitivity and specificity of DMRT for prediction of functional improvement was 86% and 69%, respectively, with an overall accuracy of 76%. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of DSE was 86%, 87%, and 85%, respectively. Overall accuracy was similar between techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Both DSMRT and DSE are sensitive and accurate techniques for predicting functional improvement after reperfused MI.
Authors: Gabriella M Vincenti; Giuseppe Ambrosio; Jean-Noël Hyacinthe; Alessandra Quercioli; Yann Seimbille; François Mach; Osman Ratib; Jean-Paul Vallée; Thomas H Schindler Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2012-04-28 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Eric J Keller; Shanna Fang; Kai Lin; Benjamin H Freed; Peter M Smith; Bruce S Spottiswoode; Rachel Davids; Maria Carr; Marie-Pierre Jolly; Michael Markl; James C Carr; Jeremy D Collins Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-02-26 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Monda L Shehata; Susan Cheng; Nael F Osman; David A Bluemke; João A C Lima Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 5.364