AIMS: Conventional late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance can detect myocardial infarction and some forms of non-ischaemic myocardial fibrosis. However, quantitative imaging of extracellular volume fraction (ECV) may be able to detect subtle abnormalities such as diffuse fibrosis or post-infarct remodelling of remote myocardium. The aims were (1) to measure ECV in myocardial infarction and non-ischaemic myocardial fibrosis, (2) to determine whether ECV varies with age, and (3) to detect sub-clinical abnormalities in 'normal appearing' myocardium remote from regions of infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cardiac magnetic resonance ECV imaging was performed in 126 patients with T1 mapping before and after injection of gadolinium contrast. Conventional LGE images were acquired for the left ventricle. In patients with a prior myocardial infarction, the infarct region had an ECV of 51 ± 8% which did not overlap with the remote 'normal appearing' myocardium that had an ECV of 27 ± 3% (P < 0.001, n = 36). In patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, the ECV of atypical LGE was 37 ± 6%, whereas the 'normal appearing' myocardium had an ECV of 26 ± 3% (P < 0.001, n = 30). The ECV of 'normal appearing' myocardium increased with age (r = 0.28, P = 0.01, n = 60). The ECV of 'normal appearing' myocardium remote from myocardial infarctions increased as left ventricular ejection fraction decreased (r = -0.50, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Extracellular volume fraction imaging can quantitatively characterize myocardial infarction, atypical diffuse fibrosis, and subtle myocardial abnormalities not clinically apparent on LGE images. Taken within the context of prior literature, these subtle ECV abnormalities are consistent with diffuse fibrosis related to age and changes remote from infarction.
AIMS: Conventional late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiac magnetic resonance can detect myocardial infarction and some forms of non-ischaemic myocardial fibrosis. However, quantitative imaging of extracellular volume fraction (ECV) may be able to detect subtle abnormalities such as diffuse fibrosis or post-infarct remodelling of remote myocardium. The aims were (1) to measure ECV in myocardial infarction and non-ischaemic myocardial fibrosis, (2) to determine whether ECV varies with age, and (3) to detect sub-clinical abnormalities in 'normal appearing' myocardium remote from regions of infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cardiac magnetic resonance ECV imaging was performed in 126 patients with T1 mapping before and after injection of gadolinium contrast. Conventional LGE images were acquired for the left ventricle. In patients with a prior myocardial infarction, the infarct region had an ECV of 51 ± 8% which did not overlap with the remote 'normal appearing' myocardium that had an ECV of 27 ± 3% (P < 0.001, n = 36). In patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy, the ECV of atypical LGE was 37 ± 6%, whereas the 'normal appearing' myocardium had an ECV of 26 ± 3% (P < 0.001, n = 30). The ECV of 'normal appearing' myocardium increased with age (r = 0.28, P = 0.01, n = 60). The ECV of 'normal appearing' myocardium remote from myocardial infarctions increased as left ventricular ejection fraction decreased (r = -0.50, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Extracellular volume fraction imaging can quantitatively characterize myocardial infarction, atypical diffuse fibrosis, and subtle myocardial abnormalities not clinically apparent on LGE images. Taken within the context of prior literature, these subtle ECV abnormalities are consistent with diffuse fibrosis related to age and changes remote from infarction.
Authors: Daniel R Messroghli; Andre Rudolph; Hassan Abdel-Aty; Ralf Wassmuth; Titus Kühne; Rainer Dietz; Jeanette Schulz-Menger Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2010-07-30 Impact factor: 1.930
Authors: Andrew S Flett; Martin P Hayward; Michael T Ashworth; Michael S Hansen; Andrew M Taylor; Perry M Elliott; Christopher McGregor; James C Moon Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-06-28 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Leah Iles; Heinz Pfluger; Arintaya Phrommintikul; Joshi Cherayath; Pelin Aksit; Sandeep N Gupta; David M Kaye; Andrew J Taylor Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-11-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Erik B Schelbert; Stephen M Testa; Christopher G Meier; William J Ceyrolles; Joshua E Levenson; Alexander J Blair; Peter Kellman; Bobby L Jones; Daniel R Ludwig; David Schwartzman; Sanjeev G Shroff; Timothy C Wong Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2011-03-04 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Pascale Beliveau; Farida Cheriet; Stasia A Anderson; Joni L Taylor; Andrew E Arai; Li-Yueh Hsu Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Jong-Chan Youn; Yoo Jin Hong; Hye-Jeong Lee; Kyunghwa Han; Chi Young Shim; Geu-Ru Hong; Young Joo Suh; Jin Hur; Young Jin Kim; Byoung Wook Choi; Seok-Min Kang Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jerry D Estep; Arvind Bhimaraj; A M Cordero-Reyes; Brian Bruckner; Matthias Loebe; Guillermo Torre-Amione Journal: Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J Date: 2012 Jul-Sep
Authors: Tomas G Neilan; Otavio R Coelho-Filho; Ravi V Shah; Jiazuo H Feng; Diego Pena-Herrera; Damien Mandry; Francois Pierre-Mongeon; Bobak Heydari; Sanjeev A Francis; Javid Moslehi; Raymond Y Kwong; Michael Jerosch-Herold Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2012-12-08 Impact factor: 2.778