BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) can accurately determine infarct size. Prior studies using indirect methods to assess infarct size have shown that patients with larger myocardial infarctions have a worse prognosis than those with smaller myocardial infarctions. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the prognostic significance of infarct size determined by CMR. METHODS: Cine and contrast CMR were performed in 100 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing routine cardiac evaluation. Infarct size was determined by planimetry. We used Cox proportional hazards regression analyses (stepwise forward selection approach) to evaluate the risk of all-cause death associated with traditional cardiovascular risk factors, symptoms of heart failure, medication use, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular mass, angiographic severity of CAD and extent of infarct size determined by CMR. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients had evidence of myocardial infarction by CMR. Mean follow-up was 4.8±1.6 years after CMR, during which time 30 patients died. The significant multivariable predictors of all-cause mortality were extent of myocardial infarction by CMR, extent of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, symptoms of heart failure, and diabetes mellitus (P<.05). The presence of infarct greater than or equal to 24% of left ventricular mass and left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 30% were the most optimal cut-off points for the prediction of death with bivariate adjusted hazard ratios of 2.11 (95% confidence interval 1.02-4.38) and 4.06 (95% confidence interval 1.73-9.54), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of myocardial infarction determined by CMR is an independent predictor of death in patients with CAD.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) can accurately determine infarct size. Prior studies using indirect methods to assess infarct size have shown that patients with larger myocardial infarctions have a worse prognosis than those with smaller myocardial infarctions. OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the prognostic significance of infarct size determined by CMR. METHODS: Cine and contrast CMR were performed in 100 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing routine cardiac evaluation. Infarct size was determined by planimetry. We used Cox proportional hazards regression analyses (stepwise forward selection approach) to evaluate the risk of all-cause death associated with traditional cardiovascular risk factors, symptoms of heart failure, medication use, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular mass, angiographic severity of CAD and extent of infarct size determined by CMR. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients had evidence of myocardial infarction by CMR. Mean follow-up was 4.8±1.6 years after CMR, during which time 30 patients died. The significant multivariable predictors of all-cause mortality were extent of myocardial infarction by CMR, extent of left ventricular systolic dysfunction, symptoms of heart failure, and diabetes mellitus (P<.05). The presence of infarct greater than or equal to 24% of left ventricular mass and left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 30% were the most optimal cut-off points for the prediction of death with bivariate adjusted hazard ratios of 2.11 (95% confidence interval 1.02-4.38) and 4.06 (95% confidence interval 1.73-9.54), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of myocardial infarction determined by CMR is an independent predictor of death in patients with CAD.
Authors: Robert C Schutt; Barry H Trachtenberg; John P Cooke; Jay H Traverse; Timothy D Henry; Carl J Pepine; James T Willerson; Emerson C Perin; Stephen G Ellis; David X M Zhao; Aruni Bhatnagar; Brian H Johnstone; Dejian Lai; Micheline Resende; Ray F Ebert; Joseph C Wu; Shelly L Sayre; Aaron Orozco; Claudia Zierold; Robert D Simari; Lem Moyé; Christopher R Cogle; Doris A Taylor Journal: Circ Res Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Marco Spartera; Anna Damascelli; Ferenc Mozes; Francesco De Cobelli; Giovanni La Canna Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Jason Ng; Jason T Jacobson; Justin K Ng; David Gordon; Daniel C Lee; James C Carr; Jeffrey J Goldberger Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-05-23 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: James A Fallavollita; Jonathan D Dare; Randolph L Carter; Sunil Baldwa; John M Canty Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Zak Loring; Wojciech Zareba; Scott McNitt; David G Strauss; Galen S Wagner; James P Daubert Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2013-06-09 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Alan W Heldman; Darcy L DiFede; Joel E Fishman; Juan P Zambrano; Barry H Trachtenberg; Vasileios Karantalis; Muzammil Mushtaq; Adam R Williams; Viky Y Suncion; Ian K McNiece; Eduard Ghersin; Victor Soto; Gustavo Lopera; Roberto Miki; Howard Willens; Robert Hendel; Raul Mitrani; Pradip Pattany; Gary Feigenbaum; Behzad Oskouei; John Byrnes; Maureen H Lowery; Julio Sierra; Mariesty V Pujol; Cindy Delgado; Phillip J Gonzalez; Jose E Rodriguez; Luiza Lima Bagno; Didier Rouy; Peter Altman; Cheryl Wong Po Foo; Jose da Silva; Erica Anderson; Richard Schwarz; Adam Mendizabal; Joshua M Hare Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 56.272