| Literature DB >> 20433716 |
Peder Sörensson1, Einar Heiberg, Nawsad Saleh, Frederic Bouvier, Kenneth Caidahl, Per Tornvall, Lars Rydén, John Pernow, Håkan Arheden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Final infarct size following coronary occlusion is determined by the duration of ischemia, the size of myocardium at risk (MaR) and reperfusion injury. The reference method for determining MaR, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) before reperfusion, is impractical in an acute setting. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether MaR can be determined from the contrast enhanced myocardium using steady-state free precession (SSFP) cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) performed one week after the acute event in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with total coronary occlusion.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20433716 PMCID: PMC2885384 DOI: 10.1186/1532-429X-12-25
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Myocardium at risk comparing SPECT and CMR. Infarct size measured with LGE and myocardial salvage index
| Culprit lesion | MaR SPECT (LV%) | MaR CMR (LV%) | Infarct size LGE (LV%) | Salvage Index (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient 1 | RCA | 38 | 31 | 15 | 52 |
| Patient 2 | LAD | 51 | 47 | 30 | 36 |
| Patient 3 | RCA | 30 | 35 | 1 | 97 |
| Patient 4 | RCA | 30 | 30 | 9 | 70 |
| Patient 5 | RCA | 31 | 28 | 14 | 50 |
| Patient 6 | RCA | 15 | 23 | 2 | 91 |
| Patient 7 | LAD | 37 | 32 | 11 | 66 |
| Patient 8 | RCA | 26 | 24 | 9 | 63 |
| Patient 9 | RCA | 25 | 21 | 9 | 57 |
| Patient 10 | RCA | 28 | 29 | 7 | 76 |
| Patient 11 | RCA | 11 | 17 | 10 | 41 |
| Patient 12 | RCA | 26 | 24 | 10 | 58 |
| Patient 13 | RCA | 14 | 23 | 5 | 78 |
| Patient 14 | RCA | 18 | 24 | 9 | 63 |
| Patient 15 | CX | 28 | 27 | 9 | 67 |
| Patient 16 | RCA | 22 | 27 | 1 | 96 |
RCA = right coronary artery; LAD = left ascending artery; CX = left circumflex artery;
MaR = Myocardium at Risk; SPECT = single-photon emission computed tomography;
CMR = cardiovascular magnetic resonance; LV = left ventricle. Myocardial salvage index
(1-scar/MaR).
Figure 1Agreement between MaR determined by CMR and SPECT. Panel A: Scatter plot showing MaR one week after reperfusion determined by gadolinum enhanced SSFP cines plotted versus MaR as it was before reperfusion determined by myocardial perfusion SPECT together with best line and line of identity. Panel B: Bland-Altman plot showing the agreement between MaR determined by myocardial perfusion SPECT and contrast enhanced cine SSFP. The difference was 0.5 ± 10% (mean ± 2SD).
Figure 2Inferior STEMI. Corresponding left ventricular short axis views from a patient with inferior STEMI. MaR determined by (a) myocardial perfusion SPECT, (b) gadolinium enhanced SSFP at end-diastole, (c) infarct size images with LGE and (d) gadolinium enhanced SSFP at end-systole.
Figure 3Anterior STEMI. Corresponding left ventricular short axis views from a patient with anterior myocardial STEMI. MaR determined by (a) myocardial perfusion SPECT, (b) gadolinium enhanced SSFP at end-diastole, (c) infarct size images with LGE and (d) gadolinium enhanced SSFP at end-systole. It is clearly seen that the region of gadolinium enhancement does not correspond in size or endocardial extent to the region of myocardium at risk either by SSFP cines or myocardial SPECT.
Figure 4Myocardial salvage. Corresponding left ventricular short axis views from a patient with inferior STEMI. MaR determined by (a) gadolinium enhanced SSFP at end-diastole, (b) infarct size images with LGE and (c). The infarcted area from panel b is superimposed on MaR from panel a (light grey shade on dark striped area). Myocardial salvage index is calculated as (1-scar/MaR).