| Literature DB >> 19589148 |
Martha Nowosielski1, Michael Schocke, Agnes Mayr, Kathrin Pedarnig, Gert Klug, Almut Köhler, Thomas Bartel, Silvana Müller, Thomas Trieb, Otmar Pachinger, Bernhard Metzler.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) and echocardiography (echo) in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with emphasis on the analysis of left ventricular function and left ventricular wall motion characteristics.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19589148 PMCID: PMC2717065 DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-11-22
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Clinical parameters
| Age (yrs) | 54 ± 12 |
| Patients (number) | 52 |
| Men (number) | 44 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 25.1 ± 2.8 |
| Days between AMI to baseline scan | |
| 2D | 3.4 ± 1.7 |
| CMR | 2.8 ± 1.6 |
| Days between baseline and follow-up imaging | |
| 2D | 131 ± 45 |
| CMR | 132 ± 45 |
| Delay, (h) | 4.6 ± 5 |
| cTnT, ug/l (max) | 6.43 ± 4.26 |
| CK, U/l (max) | 2172 ± 1468 |
| Infarct localisation | |
| posterior wall | 31 |
| anterior wall | 18 |
| lateral | 3 |
| Pre-hospital thrombolysis | 6 |
| 2D findings | |
| EF (%), baseline | 51.2 ± 8.1 |
| EF (%), follow-up | 54.5 ± 8.3 |
| Segments evaluated | 832 |
| "infarcted" segments, baseline | 2.1 ± 1.6 |
| "infarcted" segments, follow-up | 1 ± 1 |
| CMR findings | |
| EF (%), baseline | 44.2 ± 11.6 |
| EF (%), follow-up | 49.2 ± 11.1 |
| Infarct mass (g), baseline | 19.5 ± 12.2 |
| Infarct mass (g), follow-up | 15.8 ± 11.1 |
| Segments showing LGE, baseline | 7.4 ± 3.1 |
| Segments showing LGE, follow-up | 7.3 ± 3 |
Clinical characteristics of study patients; AMI: acute myocardial infarction, 2D: 2 dimensional echocardiography, CMR: cardiac magnetic resonance, Delay: door-to-balloon-time, cTnT: cardiac Troponin T, CK: creatine kinase, EF: ejection fraction, LGE: late enhancement. Data is presented as mean ± standard error (SE)
Correlation of SWT scores with CMR findings and infarcted segments in echo
| 0.446 | 0.434 | 0.714 | 0.604 | 0.380 | 0.360 | 0.505 | 0.440 | |
| 0.498 | 0.449 | 0.744 | 0.591 | 0.474 | 0.382 | 0.561 | 0.545 | |
| 0.406 | 0.377 | 0.742 | 0.525 | 0.488 | 0.431 | 0.584 | 0.544 | |
| 0.316 | 0.364 | 0.762 | 0.475 | 0.533 | 0.448 | 0.597 | 0.513 | |
| n.s. | 0.386 | 0.737 | 0.369 | 0.555 | 0.470 | 0.633 | 0.500 | |
Table 2 shows the correlation of different SWT (systolic wall thickening) scores, markers of regional wall motion abnormality, with the number of infarcted segments in echo (assessed visually, > 50% hypokinetic), late enhancement in CMR and EF in echo and CMR, in all values (p < 0.001). The best correlation of infarcted segments in echo and SWT in CMR is found at a SWT less then 30%. SWT < 30% correlates also highly significant with EFCMR and EFecho. Through this correlation we were able to describe a cut-off value of less than 30% SWT to define an infarcted segment in CMR with influence on the left ventricular function. Spearman test was used for linear correlations of the selected variables. n.s = not significant.
Figure 1Correlation of EF. Figure 1 shows the correlation of EF (ejection fraction) between echo and CMR at baseline (dashed line, r: 0.326; p < 0.01) and at follow-up (continuous line, r: 0.479; p < 0.001). At follow-up echocardiography correlates better with CMR than at baseline.
Cross tabulation of various SWT scores with segments showing LGE in CMR
| negative | 382 | 306 | negative | 381 | 313 | ||
| positive | 63 | 81 | positive | 72 | 66 | ||
| sensitivity | 20.9 | sensitivity | 17.4 | ||||
| specificity | 85.8 | specificity | 84.1 | ||||
| negative | 342 | 256 | negative | 361 | 275 | ||
| positive | 103 | 131 | positive | 92 | 104 | ||
| sensitivity | 33.9 | sensitivity | 27.4 | ||||
| specificity | 76.9 | specificity | 79.7 | ||||
| negative | 304 | 212 | negative | 324 | 237 | ||
| positive | 141 | 175 | positive | 129 | 142 | ||
| sensitivity | 45.2 | sensitivity | 37.5 | ||||
| specificity | 68.3 | specificity | 71.5 | ||||
| negative | 252 | 168 | negative | 283 | 192 | ||
| positive | 193 | 219 | positive | 170 | 187 | ||
| sensitivity | 56.6 | sensitivity | 49.3 | ||||
| specificity | 56.6 | specificity | 62.5 | ||||
| negative | 206 | 140 | negative | 239 | 158 | ||
| positive | 239 | 247 | positive | 214 | 221 | ||
| sensitivity | 63.8 | sensitivity | 58.3 | ||||
| specificity | 46.3 | specificity | 52.8 | ||||
Table 3 compares each SWT (systolic wall thickening) score at baseline and follow-up through cross tabulation with the segments in CMR showing LGE (late enhancement). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated through cross tabulation.
Transmurality and SWT
| 448 | 63.6% ± 20.4% | n.s. | p < 0.001 | |
| 59 | 50.44% ± 48.7% | x | n.s. | |
| 325 | 50.08% ± 20.0% | n.s. | x |
In order to detect differences between the transmural extent of the infarct and changes of SWT (systolic wall thickening), we made three groups according to their transmurality (first had no transmurality, second had less than 50%, and the third had more than 50% transmurality). In the acute state of myocardial infarction we detected a highly significant difference in SWT between the first group with no scar and group 3 (p < 0.001). Within the groups there could not be detected any difference regarding SWT and transmurality. There could not be detected any difference between group 1 and group 2. n.s. = not significant, SE = standard error. ANOVA with Bonferroni post-hoc testing was used for statistical analysis.
Figure 2Improvement of EF. Figure 2 shows the EF (ejection fraction) for echocardiography (51.2 ± 8.1%) and CMR (44.2 ± 11.6%, at baseline (EF echo 1, EF CMR 1) and follow-up (EF echo 2, EF CMR 2) (54.5 ± 8.3%, and 49.2 ± 11%, respectively) and visualises the statistically highly significant (p < 0.001) improvement at 4-month follow-up. (* p < 0.001, + p < 0.01). Data is presented as mean ± standard error and median.