IMPORTANCE: Regional left ventricular (LV) wall thinning is believed to represent chronic transmural myocardial infarction and scar tissue. However, recent case reports using delayed-enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging raise the possibility that thinning may occur with little or no scarring. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients with regional myocardial wall thinning and to determine scar burden and potential for functional improvement. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Investigator-initiated, prospective, 3-center study conducted from August 2000 through January 2008 in 3 parts to determine (1) in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing CMR viability assessment, the prevalence of regional wall thinning (end-diastolic wall thickness ≤5.5 mm), (2) in patients with thinning, the presence and extent of scar burden, and (3) in patients with thinning undergoing coronary revascularization, any changes in myocardial morphology and contractility. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Scar burden in thinned regions assessed using delayed-enhancement CMR and changes in myocardial morphology and function assessed using cine-CMR after revascularization. RESULTS: Of 1055 consecutive patients with CAD screened, 201 (19% [95% CI, 17% to 21%]) had regional wall thinning. Wall thinning spanned a mean of 34% (95% CI, 32% to 37% [SD, 15%]) of LV surface area. Within these regions, the extent of scarring was 72% (95% CI, 69% to 76% [SD, 25%]); however, 18% (95% CI, 13% to 24%) of thinned regions had limited scar burden (≤50% of total extent). Among patients with thinning undergoing revascularization and follow-up cine-CMR (n = 42), scar extent within the thinned region was inversely related to regional (r = -0.72, P < .001) and global (r = -0.53, P < .001) contractile improvement. End-diastolic wall thickness in thinned regions with limited scar burden increased from 4.4 mm (95% CI, 4.1 to 4.7) to 7.5 mm (95% CI, 6.9 to 8.1) after revascularization (P < .001), resulting in resolution of wall thinning. On multivariable analysis, scar extent had the strongest association with contractile improvement (slope coefficient, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.04 to -0.02]; P < .001) and reversal of thinning (slope coefficient, -0.05 [95% CI, -0.06 to -0.04]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with CAD referred for CMR and found to have regional wall thinning, limited scar burden was present in 18% and was associated with improved contractility and resolution of wall thinning after revascularization. These findings, which are not consistent with common assumptions, warrant further investigation.
IMPORTANCE: Regional left ventricular (LV) wall thinning is believed to represent chronic transmural myocardial infarction and scar tissue. However, recent case reports using delayed-enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging raise the possibility that thinning may occur with little or no scarring. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients with regional myocardial wall thinning and to determine scar burden and potential for functional improvement. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Investigator-initiated, prospective, 3-center study conducted from August 2000 through January 2008 in 3 parts to determine (1) in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing CMR viability assessment, the prevalence of regional wall thinning (end-diastolic wall thickness ≤5.5 mm), (2) in patients with thinning, the presence and extent of scar burden, and (3) in patients with thinning undergoing coronary revascularization, any changes in myocardial morphology and contractility. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Scar burden in thinned regions assessed using delayed-enhancement CMR and changes in myocardial morphology and function assessed using cine-CMR after revascularization. RESULTS: Of 1055 consecutive patients with CAD screened, 201 (19% [95% CI, 17% to 21%]) had regional wall thinning. Wall thinning spanned a mean of 34% (95% CI, 32% to 37% [SD, 15%]) of LV surface area. Within these regions, the extent of scarring was 72% (95% CI, 69% to 76% [SD, 25%]); however, 18% (95% CI, 13% to 24%) of thinned regions had limited scar burden (≤50% of total extent). Among patients with thinning undergoing revascularization and follow-up cine-CMR (n = 42), scar extent within the thinned region was inversely related to regional (r = -0.72, P < .001) and global (r = -0.53, P < .001) contractile improvement. End-diastolic wall thickness in thinned regions with limited scar burden increased from 4.4 mm (95% CI, 4.1 to 4.7) to 7.5 mm (95% CI, 6.9 to 8.1) after revascularization (P < .001), resulting in resolution of wall thinning. On multivariable analysis, scar extent had the strongest association with contractile improvement (slope coefficient, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.04 to -0.02]; P < .001) and reversal of thinning (slope coefficient, -0.05 [95% CI, -0.06 to -0.04]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with CAD referred for CMR and found to have regional wall thinning, limited scar burden was present in 18% and was associated with improved contractility and resolution of wall thinning after revascularization. These findings, which are not consistent with common assumptions, warrant further investigation.
Authors: J M Cwajg; E Cwajg; S F Nagueh; Z X He; U Qureshi; L I Olmos; M A Quinones; M S Verani; W L Winters; W A Zoghbi Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Allan S Jaffe; Maarten L Simoons; Bernard R Chaitman; Harvey D White; Hugo A Katus; Bertil Lindahl; David A Morrow; Peter M Clemmensen; Per Johanson; Hanoch Hod; Richard Underwood; Jeroen J Bax; Robert O Bonow; Fausto Pinto; Raymond J Gibbons; Keith A Fox; Dan Atar; L Kristin Newby; Marcello Galvani; Christian W Hamm; Barry F Uretsky; Ph Gabriel Steg; William Wijns; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Phillippe Menasché; Jan Ravkilde; E Magnus Ohman; Elliott M Antman; Lars C Wallentin; Paul W Armstrong; Maarten L Simoons; James L Januzzi; Markku S Nieminen; Mihai Gheorghiade; Gerasimos Filippatos; Russell V Luepker; Stephen P Fortmann; Wayne D Rosamond; Dan Levy; David Wood; Sidney C Smith; Dayi Hu; José-Luis Lopez-Sendon; Rose Marie Robertson; Douglas Weaver; Michal Tendera; Alfred A Bove; Alexander N Parkhomenko; Elena J Vasilieva; Shanti Mendis Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: G La Canna; S H Rahimtoola; O Visioli; R Giubbini; O Alfieri; M Zognio; E Milan; C Ceconi; M Gargano; R Lo Russo; R Ferrari Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Robert O Bonow; Gerald Maurer; Kerry L Lee; Thomas A Holly; Philip F Binkley; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; Jaroslaw Drozdz; Pedro S Farsky; Arthur M Feldman; Torsten Doenst; Robert E Michler; Daniel S Berman; Jose C Nicolau; Patricia A Pellikka; Krzysztof Wrobel; Nasri Alotti; Federico M Asch; Liliana E Favaloro; Lilin She; Eric J Velazquez; Robert H Jones; Julio A Panza Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: R J Kim; E Wu; A Rafael; E L Chen; M A Parker; O Simonetti; F J Klocke; R O Bonow; R M Judd Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: David Bello; Dipan J Shah; George M Farah; Silvia Di Luzio; Michele Parker; Maryl R Johnson; William G Cotts; Francis J Klocke; Robert O Bonow; Robert M Judd; Mihai Gheorghiade; Raymond J Kim Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-10-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Paulo R Schvartzman; Monvadi B Srichai; Richard A Grimm; Nancy A Obuchowski; Donald F Hammer; Patrick M McCarthy; Jane M Kasper; Richard D White Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Michael W Tee; Samuel Won; Fabio S Raman; Colin Yi; Davis M Vigneault; Cynthia Davies-Venn; Songtao Liu; Albert C Lardo; João A C Lima; J Alison Noble; Craig A Emter; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-04-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ashley E Morgan; Yue Zhang; Mehrzad Tartibi; Samantha Goldburg; Jiwon J Kim; Thanh D Nguyen; Julius Guccione; Liang Ge; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Mark B Ratcliffe Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 4.330