PURPOSE: To prospectively investigate whether there is support for the hypothesis that clinically unrecognized myocardial infarctions (UMIs) detected at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging have an atherosclerotic pathogenesis similar to that of recognized myocardial infarctions (RMIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After ethics committee approval and informed consent were obtained, gadolinium-enhanced whole-body MR angiography and late-enhancement MR imaging were performed in 248 randomly chosen 70-year-old subjects (123 women, 125 men). Imaging included the aorta and the carotid, renal, and lower limb arteries to the ankle, but not the coronary arteries. Subjects with myocardial infarction (MI) scars at late-enhancement MR imaging were classified as having RMI (n=11) (those with a diagnosis of MI at the hospital) or UMI (n=49) (those without a diagnosis of MI at the hospital). The presence of 50% or higher luminal narrowing in any vessel at whole-body MR angiography was considered to represent significant atherosclerosis. Intima-media thickness of the common carotid artery was measured with ultrasonography. C-reactive protein level was measured, and coronary heart disease risk was estimated. Observers were blinded to any previous results. The chi2 test, analysis of variance, and Bonferroni correction were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: None of the measured parameters differed significantly between the group without MI scars and the UMI group, but parameters were significantly increased in the RMI group (P<.05) compared with those in the group without MI scars. Forty-two of 49 UMIs and nine of 11 RMIs were located within inferolateral segments of the left ventricle. CONCLUSION: MR imaging-detected UMIs might have a different pathogenesis from that of RMIs or may have the same pathogenesis but may manifest at an earlier stage. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2007.
PURPOSE: To prospectively investigate whether there is support for the hypothesis that clinically unrecognized myocardial infarctions (UMIs) detected at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging have an atherosclerotic pathogenesis similar to that of recognized myocardial infarctions (RMIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After ethics committee approval and informed consent were obtained, gadolinium-enhanced whole-body MR angiography and late-enhancement MR imaging were performed in 248 randomly chosen 70-year-old subjects (123 women, 125 men). Imaging included the aorta and the carotid, renal, and lower limb arteries to the ankle, but not the coronary arteries. Subjects with myocardial infarction (MI) scars at late-enhancement MR imaging were classified as having RMI (n=11) (those with a diagnosis of MI at the hospital) or UMI (n=49) (those without a diagnosis of MI at the hospital). The presence of 50% or higher luminal narrowing in any vessel at whole-body MR angiography was considered to represent significant atherosclerosis. Intima-media thickness of the common carotid artery was measured with ultrasonography. C-reactive protein level was measured, and coronary heart disease risk was estimated. Observers were blinded to any previous results. The chi2 test, analysis of variance, and Bonferroni correction were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: None of the measured parameters differed significantly between the group without MI scars and the UMI group, but parameters were significantly increased in the RMI group (P<.05) compared with those in the group without MI scars. Forty-two of 49 UMIs and nine of 11 RMIs were located within inferolateral segments of the left ventricle. CONCLUSION: MR imaging-detected UMIs might have a different pathogenesis from that of RMIs or may have the same pathogenesis but may manifest at an earlier stage. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2007.
Authors: Jin Yamamura; Michael Frisch; Hannes Ecker; Joachim Graessner; Kurt Hecher; Gerhard Adam; Ulrike Wedegärtner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-07-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jin Yamamura; Bernhard Schnackenburg; Hendrik Kooijmann; Michael Frisch; Kurt Hecher; Gerhard Adam; Ulrike Wedegärtner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-05-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Arthur E Stillman; Matthijs Oudkerk; David A Bluemke; Menko Jan de Boer; Jens Bremerich; Ernest V Garcia; Matthias Gutberlet; Pim van der Harst; W Gregory Hundley; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Dirkjan Kuijpers; Raymond Y Kwong; Eike Nagel; Stamatios Lerakis; John Oshinski; Jean-François Paul; Riemer H J A Slart; Vinod Thourani; Rozemarijn Vliegenthart; Bernd J Wintersperger Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Evrim B Turkbey; Marcelo S Nacif; Mengye Guo; Robyn L McClelland; Patricia B R P Teixeira; Diane E Bild; R Graham Barr; Steven Shea; Wendy Post; Gregory Burke; Matthew J Budoff; Aaron R Folsom; Chia-Ying Liu; João A Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jonathan R Weir-McCall; Suzanne L Duce; Stephen J Gandy; Shona Z Matthew; Patricia Martin; Deirdre B Cassidy; Lynne McCormick; Jill J F Belch; Allan D Struthers; Helen M Colhoun; J Graeme Houston Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Panagiotis Antiochos; Yin Ge; Kevin Steel; Scott Bingham; Shuaib Abdullah; J Ronald Mikolich; Andrew E Arai; W Patricia Bandettini; Amit R Patel; Afshin Farzaneh-Far; John F Heitner; Chetan Shenoy; Steve W Leung; Jorge A Gonzalez; Dipan J Shah; Subha V Raman; Victor A Ferrari; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Matthias Stuber; Orlando P Simonetti; Raymond Y Kwong Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 24.094