OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess and delineate chronic myocardial infarction (CMI) using precontrast and postcontrast T1 mapping techniques including quantification of extracellular volume fractions (ECVs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 26 patients with CMI were examined at 1.5 T applying a modified Look-Locker Inversion Recovery sequence before and 10 minutes after contrast at 3 short-axis slice positions. An inversion recovery gradient recalled echo sequence (standard of reference) was used for imaging late gadolinium enhancement. Precontrast and postcontrast T1 maps were calculated, and CMI was defined as areas with T1 values more than 3 SDs different compared with normal myocardium (MYO). T1 values of CMI, MYO, and blood pool were measured, and ECVs of CMI and MYO were calculated. Two-tailed Student t test was used for statistical analysis of T1 values and ECVs. Sensitivities and specificities for detection of CMI on precontrast and postcontrast T1 maps were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for postcontrast T1 values and ECV for discrimination of CMI. RESULTS: The comparison of T1 values of CMI and MYO revealed significant differences in precontrast and postcontrast scans (1159 ± 64 vs 1001 ± 47 milliseconds, P < 0.001, and 238 ± 74 vs 379 ± 59 milliseconds, P < 0.001). Sensitivities and specificities for detection of CMI on T1 mapping were 41.7% and 100% in precontrast Look-Locker Inversion Recovery scans and 95.8% and 99.3% in postcontrast images, respectively. Average ECV for MYO and CMI were 28% ± 5% and 53% ± 10% (P < 0.001). ROC analysis revealed nonsignificantly different areas under the curve of 0.937 and 0.997 for T1 values and ECV, respectively (P = 0.137). Sensitivities and specificities were 92.3% and 92.3% for detecting CMI by postcontrast T1 values and 95.5% and 100% for ECV, with cutoff values being 305 milliseconds or less and greater than 42%. Combined criteria did not result in any further improvement of sensitivity for CMI detection. CONCLUSIONS: Postcontrast T1 values and ECV of chronically infarcted MYO are significantly different compared with respective values of normal MYO. Both parameters allow for accurate detection of CMI with ECV showing marginally higher sensitivity and specificity. Precontrast T1 values lack accuracy in delineation of CMI.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess and delineate chronic myocardial infarction (CMI) using precontrast and postcontrast T1 mapping techniques including quantification of extracellular volume fractions (ECVs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 26 patients with CMI were examined at 1.5 T applying a modified Look-Locker Inversion Recovery sequence before and 10 minutes after contrast at 3 short-axis slice positions. An inversion recovery gradient recalled echo sequence (standard of reference) was used for imaging late gadolinium enhancement. Precontrast and postcontrast T1 maps were calculated, and CMI was defined as areas with T1 values more than 3 SDs different compared with normal myocardium (MYO). T1 values of CMI, MYO, and blood pool were measured, and ECVs of CMI and MYO were calculated. Two-tailed Student t test was used for statistical analysis of T1 values and ECVs. Sensitivities and specificities for detection of CMI on precontrast and postcontrast T1 maps were calculated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed for postcontrast T1 values and ECV for discrimination of CMI. RESULTS: The comparison of T1 values of CMI and MYO revealed significant differences in precontrast and postcontrast scans (1159 ± 64 vs 1001 ± 47 milliseconds, P < 0.001, and 238 ± 74 vs 379 ± 59 milliseconds, P < 0.001). Sensitivities and specificities for detection of CMI on T1 mapping were 41.7% and 100% in precontrast Look-Locker Inversion Recovery scans and 95.8% and 99.3% in postcontrast images, respectively. Average ECV for MYO and CMI were 28% ± 5% and 53% ± 10% (P < 0.001). ROC analysis revealed nonsignificantly different areas under the curve of 0.937 and 0.997 for T1 values and ECV, respectively (P = 0.137). Sensitivities and specificities were 92.3% and 92.3% for detecting CMI by postcontrast T1 values and 95.5% and 100% for ECV, with cutoff values being 305 milliseconds or less and greater than 42%. Combined criteria did not result in any further improvement of sensitivity for CMI detection. CONCLUSIONS: Postcontrast T1 values and ECV of chronically infarcted MYO are significantly different compared with respective values of normal MYO. Both parameters allow for accurate detection of CMI with ECV showing marginally higher sensitivity and specificity. Precontrast T1 values lack accuracy in delineation of CMI.
Authors: Francesco Sardanelli; Simone Schiaffino; Moreno Zanardo; Francesco Secchi; Paola Maria Cannaò; Federico Ambrogi; Giovanni Di Leo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jeremy R Burt; Stefan L Zimmerman; Ihab R Kamel; Marc Halushka; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiographics Date: 2014 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Pan Ki Kim; Yoo Jin Hong; Dong Jin Im; Young Joo Suh; Chul Hwan Park; Jin Young Kim; Suyon Chang; Hye-Jeong Lee; Jin Hur; Young Jin Kim; Byoung Wook Choi Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Peter Kellman; W Patricia Bandettini; Christine Mancini; Sophia Hammer-Hansen; Michael S Hansen; Andrew E Arai Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2015-05-10 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Heerajnarain Bulluck; Matthew Hammond-Haley; Marianna Fontana; Daniel S Knight; Alex Sirker; Anna S Herrey; Charlotte Manisty; Peter Kellman; James C Moon; Derek J Hausenloy Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 5.364