PURPOSE: To demonstrate the advantages of signal intensity percent-infarct-mapping (SI-PIM) using the standard delayed enhancement (DE) acquisition in assessing viability following myocardial infarction (MI). SI-PIM quantifies MI density with a voxel-by-voxel resolution in clinically used DE images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In canines (n= 6), 96 hours after reperfused MI and administration of 0.2 mmol/kg Gd(DTPA), ex vivo DE images were acquired and SI-PIMs calculated. SI-PIM data were compared with data from DE images analyzed with several thresholding levels using SI(remote+2SD), SI(remote+6SD), SI full width half maximum (SI(FWHM)), and with triphenyl-tetrazolium-chloride (TTC) staining. SI-PIM was also compared to R1 percent infarct mapping (R1-PIM). RESULTS: Left ventricular infarct volumes (IV) in DE images, IV(SIremote+2SD) and IV(SIremote+6SD), overestimated (P < 0.05) TTC by medians of 13.21 mL [10.2; 15.2] and 6.2 mL [3.79; 8.23], respectively. SI(FWHM), SI-PIM, and R1-PIM, however, only nonsignificantly underestimated TTC, by medians of -0.10 mL [-0.12, -0.06], -0.86 mL [-1.04; 1.54], and -1.30 mL [-4.99; -0.29], respectively. The infarct-involved voxel volume (IIVV) of SI-PIM, 32.4 mL [21.2, 46.3] is higher (P < 0.01) than IIVVs of SI(FWHM) 8.3 mL [3.79, 19.0]. SI-PIM(FWHM), however, underestimates TTC (-5.74 mL [-11.89; -2.52] (P < 0.01)). Thus, SI-PIM outperforms SI(FWHM) because larger IIVVs are obtained, and thus PIs both in the rim and the core of the infarcted tissue are characterized, in contradistinction from DE-SI(FWHM), which shows mainly the infarct core. CONCLUSION: We have shown here, ex vivo, that SI-PIM has the same advantages as R1-PIM, but it is based on the scanning sequences of DE imaging, and thus it is obtainable within the same short scanning time as DE. This makes it a practical method for clinical studies.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the advantages of signal intensity percent-infarct-mapping (SI-PIM) using the standard delayed enhancement (DE) acquisition in assessing viability following myocardial infarction (MI). SI-PIM quantifies MI density with a voxel-by-voxel resolution in clinically used DE images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In canines (n= 6), 96 hours after reperfused MI and administration of 0.2 mmol/kg Gd(DTPA), ex vivo DE images were acquired and SI-PIMs calculated. SI-PIM data were compared with data from DE images analyzed with several thresholding levels using SI(remote+2SD), SI(remote+6SD), SI full width half maximum (SI(FWHM)), and with triphenyl-tetrazolium-chloride (TTC) staining. SI-PIM was also compared to R1 percent infarct mapping (R1-PIM). RESULTS:Left ventricular infarct volumes (IV) in DE images, IV(SIremote+2SD) and IV(SIremote+6SD), overestimated (P < 0.05) TTC by medians of 13.21 mL [10.2; 15.2] and 6.2 mL [3.79; 8.23], respectively. SI(FWHM), SI-PIM, and R1-PIM, however, only nonsignificantly underestimated TTC, by medians of -0.10 mL [-0.12, -0.06], -0.86 mL [-1.04; 1.54], and -1.30 mL [-4.99; -0.29], respectively. The infarct-involved voxel volume (IIVV) of SI-PIM, 32.4 mL [21.2, 46.3] is higher (P < 0.01) than IIVVs of SI(FWHM) 8.3 mL [3.79, 19.0]. SI-PIM(FWHM), however, underestimates TTC (-5.74 mL [-11.89; -2.52] (P < 0.01)). Thus, SI-PIM outperforms SI(FWHM) because larger IIVVs are obtained, and thus PIs both in the rim and the core of the infarcted tissue are characterized, in contradistinction from DE-SI(FWHM), which shows mainly the infarct core. CONCLUSION: We have shown here, ex vivo, that SI-PIM has the same advantages as R1-PIM, but it is based on the scanning sequences of DE imaging, and thus it is obtainable within the same short scanning time as DE. This makes it a practical method for clinical studies.
Authors: O P Simonetti; R J Kim; D S Fieno; H B Hillenbrand; E Wu; J M Bundy; J P Finn; R M Judd Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: R J Kim; D S Fieno; T B Parrish; K Harris; E L Chen; O Simonetti; J Bundy; J P Finn; F J Klocke; R M Judd Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-11-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: André Schmidt; Clerio F Azevedo; Alan Cheng; Sandeep N Gupta; David A Bluemke; Thomas K Foo; Gary Gerstenblith; Robert G Weiss; Eduardo Marbán; Gordon F Tomaselli; João A C Lima; Katherine C Wu Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Karl H Schuleri; Marco Centola; Richard T George; Luciano C Amado; Kristine S Evers; Kakuya Kitagawa; Andrea L Vavere; Robert Evers; Joshua M Hare; Christopher Cox; Elliot R McVeigh; João A C Lima; Albert C Lardo Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-05-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Balázs Ruzsics; Pál Surányi; Pál Kiss; Brigitta C Brott; Ada Elgavish; Tamas Simor; Gabriel A Elgavish Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Akos Varga-Szemes; Balazs Ruzsics; Robert Kirschner; Satinder P Singh; Pal Kiss; Brigitta C Brott; Tamas Simor; Ada Elgavish; Gabriel A Elgavish Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Zsofia Lenkey; Akos Varga-Szemes; Tamas Simor; Rob J van der Geest; Robert Kirschner; Levente Toth; Tamas Bodnar; Brigitta C Brott; Ada Elgavish; Gabriel A Elgavish Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Akos Varga-Szemes; Tamas Simor; Zsofia Lenkey; Rob J van der Geest; Robert Kirschner; Levente Toth; Brigitta C Brott; Ada Elgavish; Gabriel A Elgavish Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-04-10 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Jennifer I Berliner; Aya Kino; James C Carr; Robert O Bonow; Lubna Choudhury Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 2.357