BACKGROUND: Advances in the management of myocardial infarction have resulted in substantial reductions in morbidity and mortality. METHODS: However, after acute treatment a number of diagnostic and prognostic questions often remain to be answered, whereby cardiac imaging plays an essential role. RESULTS: For example, some patients will sustain early mechanical complications after infarction, while others may develop significant ventricular dysfunction. Furthermore, many individuals harbour a significant burden of residual coronary disease for which clarification of functional ischaemic status and/or viability of the suspected myocardial territory is required. CONCLUSION: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is well positioned to fulfil these requirements given its unparalleled capability in evaluating cardiac function, stress ischaemia testing and myocardial tissue characterisation. This review will focus on the utility of CMR in resolving diagnostic uncertainty, evaluating early complications following myocardial infarction, assessing inducible ischaemia, myocardial viability, ventricular remodelling and the emerging role of CMR-derived measures as endpoints in clinical trials. KEY POINTS: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging identifies early complications after myocardial infarction. • Adenosine stress CMR can reliably assess co-existing disease in non-culprit arteries. • Assessment of infarct size and microvascular obstruction a robust prognostic indicator. • Assessment of myocardial viability is important to guide revascularisation decision-making.
BACKGROUND: Advances in the management of myocardial infarction have resulted in substantial reductions in morbidity and mortality. METHODS: However, after acute treatment a number of diagnostic and prognostic questions often remain to be answered, whereby cardiac imaging plays an essential role. RESULTS: For example, some patients will sustain early mechanical complications after infarction, while others may develop significant ventricular dysfunction. Furthermore, many individuals harbour a significant burden of residual coronary disease for which clarification of functional ischaemic status and/or viability of the suspected myocardial territory is required. CONCLUSION: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging is well positioned to fulfil these requirements given its unparalleled capability in evaluating cardiac function, stress ischaemia testing and myocardial tissue characterisation. This review will focus on the utility of CMR in resolving diagnostic uncertainty, evaluating early complications following myocardial infarction, assessing inducible ischaemia, myocardial viability, ventricular remodelling and the emerging role of CMR-derived measures as endpoints in clinical trials. KEY POINTS: Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging identifies early complications after myocardial infarction. • Adenosine stress CMR can reliably assess co-existing disease in non-culprit arteries. • Assessment of infarct size and microvascular obstruction a robust prognostic indicator. • Assessment of myocardial viability is important to guide revascularisation decision-making.
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: Anja Wagner; Heiko Mahrholdt; Louise Thomson; Stefan Hager; Gabriel Meinhardt; Wolfgang Rehwald; Michele Parker; Dipan Shah; Udo Sechtem; Raymond J Kim; Robert M Judd Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-04-27 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kevin Steel; Ryan Broderick; Vijay Gandla; Eric Larose; Frederick Resnic; Michael Jerosch-Herold; Kenneth A Brown; Raymond Y Kwong Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-09-21 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Clerio F Azevedo; Luciano C Amado; Dara L Kraitchman; Bernhard L Gerber; Nael F Osman; Carlos E Rochitte; Thor Edvardsen; Joao A C Lima Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Kiran R Nandalur; Ben A Dwamena; Asim F Choudhri; Mohan R Nandalur; Ruth C Carlos Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-09-17 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Dennis T L Wong; Darryl P Leong; Michael J Weightman; James D Richardson; Benjamin K Dundon; Peter J Psaltis; Michael C H Leung; Ian T Meredith; Matthew I Worthley; Stephen G Worthley Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-04-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Idan Roifman; Nilesh R Ghugre; Tasnim Vira; Mohammad I Zia; Anna Zavodni; Mihaela Pop; Kim A Connelly; Graham A Wright Journal: BMC Cardiovasc Disord Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Tom Hendriks; Minke H T Hartman; Pieter J J Vlaar; Niek H J Prakken; Yldau M Y van der Ende; Chris P H Lexis; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Iwan C C van der Horst; Erik Lipsic; Robin Nijveldt; Pim van der Harst Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Martin Reindl; Sebastian Johannes Reinstadler; Christina Tiller; Hans-Josef Feistritzer; Markus Kofler; Alexandra Brix; Agnes Mayr; Gert Klug; Bernhard Metzler Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ruben N Eppinga; Minke H T Hartman; Dirk J van Veldhuisen; Chris P H Lexis; Margery A Connelly; Erik Lipsic; Iwan C C van der Horst; Pim van der Harst; Robin P F Dullaart Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 3.240