PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the accuracy of clinical and cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) imaging parameters for predicting left ventricular (LV) remodeling by using follow-up imaging as reference standard, and to prospectively evaluate infarct resorption in patients with reperfused first myocardial infarcts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee and all patients gave written informed consent. In 55 patients (48 men, seven women; mean age+/-standard deviation, 56 years+/-13), contrast material-enhanced and cine MR imaging were performed 5 days+/-3 and 8 months+/-3 after myocardial infarction (MI). Microvascular obstruction (MO) and infarct size were estimated at first-pass enhancement (FPE) and delayed enhancement (DE) MR, respectively. Remodeling was defined as an increase in LV end-diastolic volume index of 20% or higher at follow-up. Differences in continuous and categorical data were analyzed by using Student t test and Fischer exact test as appropriate. RESULTS: Patients with remodeling (n=13, 24%) had higher creatine kinase MB (P<.05), more anterior infarcts (P<.05), more often a reduced Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow (P<.05), larger infarct size at DE MR (P<.001), a greater extent of MO at FPE MR (P<.01), lower ejection fraction (P<.001) and higher LV end-systolic volume index (P<.01). Infarct size at DE MR was a powerful predictor for remodeling (odds ratio: 1.18, P<.001), demonstrating that the risk for remodeling increased 2.8-fold with each 10% increase in infarct size. Infarct size of 24% or more of LV area predicted remodeling with high sensitivity (92%), specificity (93%), and accuracy (93%). Infarct resorption was larger in patients with remodeling (P<.01). CONCLUSION: Infarct size 24% or more of the LV area constitutes an important threshold to predict remodeling. Patients with remodeling develop disproportionate infarct resorption. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2007.
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the accuracy of clinical and cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) imaging parameters for predicting left ventricular (LV) remodeling by using follow-up imaging as reference standard, and to prospectively evaluate infarct resorption in patients with reperfused first myocardial infarcts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee and all patients gave written informed consent. In 55 patients (48 men, seven women; mean age+/-standard deviation, 56 years+/-13), contrast material-enhanced and cine MR imaging were performed 5 days+/-3 and 8 months+/-3 after myocardial infarction (MI). Microvascular obstruction (MO) and infarct size were estimated at first-pass enhancement (FPE) and delayed enhancement (DE) MR, respectively. Remodeling was defined as an increase in LV end-diastolic volume index of 20% or higher at follow-up. Differences in continuous and categorical data were analyzed by using Student t test and Fischer exact test as appropriate. RESULTS:Patients with remodeling (n=13, 24%) had higher creatine kinase MB (P<.05), more anterior infarcts (P<.05), more often a reduced Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow (P<.05), larger infarct size at DE MR (P<.001), a greater extent of MO at FPE MR (P<.01), lower ejection fraction (P<.001) and higher LV end-systolic volume index (P<.01). Infarct size at DE MR was a powerful predictor for remodeling (odds ratio: 1.18, P<.001), demonstrating that the risk for remodeling increased 2.8-fold with each 10% increase in infarct size. Infarct size of 24% or more of LV area predicted remodeling with high sensitivity (92%), specificity (93%), and accuracy (93%). Infarct resorption was larger in patients with remodeling (P<.01). CONCLUSION:Infarct size 24% or more of the LV area constitutes an important threshold to predict remodeling. Patients with remodeling develop disproportionate infarct resorption. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2007.
Authors: Dennis T L Wong; James D Richardson; Rishi Puri; Adam J Nelson; Angela G Bertaso; Karen S L Teo; Matthew I Worthley; Stephen G Worthley Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-03-25 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: Maythem Saeed; Alastair Martin; Alexis Jacquier; Matthew Bucknor; David Saloner; Loi Do; Philip Ursell; Hua Su; Yuet W Kan; Charles B Higgins Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-09-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Anil K Attili; Andreas Schuster; Eike Nagel; Johan H C Reiber; Rob J van der Geest Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.357