Avinash Kali1, Richard L Q Tang, Andreas Kumar, James K Min, Rohan Dharmakumar. 1. Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, Department of Biomedical Sciences, and Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, PACT Bldg-Suite 800, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, Calif 90048; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill; Department of Biomedical Engineering and Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Calif; Québec Heart and Lung Institute, Laval University, Québec City, Québec, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate T2 and T2* changes in acute reperfused hemorrhagic and nonhemorrhagic myocardial infarctions and to determine which technique is more suitable in the detection of intramyocardial hemorrhage at 1.5 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient studies were approved by the institutional review board and were HIPAA compliant. Patients (n = 14, three women) with first ST-elevation myocardial infarction underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) imaging 3 days after angioplasty. T2* maps, T2 short inversion time inversion-recovery (STIR) images, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) images were acquired. Animal studies were approved by the institutional animal care and use committee. Canines (n = 20) were subjected to ischemia-reperfusion injury, and cardiac MR imaging was performed 5 days after reperfusion. T2* and T2 maps and T2 STIR and LGE images were acquired. Repeated-measures analysis of variance or the Friedman test was used to compare T2 and T2* changes in patients with hemorrhagic infarctions and those with nonhemorrhagic infarctions. RESULTS: Relative to remote myocardium, mean T2* of hemorrhagic infarctions was 54% ± 13 (standard deviation) lower in patients (15.9 msec ± 4.5 vs 35.2 msec ± 2.1, P < .001) and 40% ± 10 lower in canines (23.0 msec ± 4.0 vs 39.3 msec ± 2.5, P < .001). Mean T2* of nonhemorrhagic infarctions was marginally elevated by 6% ± 2.5 (37.8 msec ± 2.5, P = .021) in patients and by 8% ± 5 (44.6 msec ± 4.8, P = .012) in canines. In contrast, mean T2 STIR signal intensity (SI) of both hemorrhagic infarctions and nonhemorrhagic infarctions was higher than that in remote myocardium both in patients (hemorrhagic: 37% ± 19, P < .001; nonhemorrhagic: 78% ± 27, P < .001) and in canines (hemorrhagic: 42% ± 22, P < .001; nonhemorrhagic: 65% ± 22, P < .001). Consistent with STIR SI findings, mean T2 of both hemorrhagic (62.0 msec ± 4.9) and nonhemorrhagic (71.7 msec ± 7.3) infarctions in canines was elevated relative to mean T2 of remote myocardium (52.1 msec ± 4.8) by 18% ± 9 and 38% ± 13, respectively (P < .001 for both). CONCLUSION: T2* cardiac MR imaging is more suitable than T2 cardiac MR imaging in the detection and characterization of acute reperfusion myocardial hemorrhage. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13122397/-/DC1. RSNA, 2013
PURPOSE: To evaluate T2 and T2* changes in acute reperfused hemorrhagic and nonhemorrhagic myocardial infarctions and to determine which technique is more suitable in the detection of intramyocardial hemorrhage at 1.5 T. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patient studies were approved by the institutional review board and were HIPAA compliant. Patients (n = 14, three women) with first ST-elevation myocardial infarction underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (MR) imaging 3 days after angioplasty. T2* maps, T2 short inversion time inversion-recovery (STIR) images, and late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) images were acquired. Animal studies were approved by the institutional animal care and use committee. Canines (n = 20) were subjected to ischemia-reperfusion injury, and cardiac MR imaging was performed 5 days after reperfusion. T2* and T2 maps and T2 STIR and LGE images were acquired. Repeated-measures analysis of variance or the Friedman test was used to compare T2 and T2* changes in patients with hemorrhagic infarctions and those with nonhemorrhagic infarctions. RESULTS: Relative to remote myocardium, mean T2* of hemorrhagic infarctions was 54% ± 13 (standard deviation) lower in patients (15.9 msec ± 4.5 vs 35.2 msec ± 2.1, P < .001) and 40% ± 10 lower in canines (23.0 msec ± 4.0 vs 39.3 msec ± 2.5, P < .001). Mean T2* of nonhemorrhagic infarctions was marginally elevated by 6% ± 2.5 (37.8 msec ± 2.5, P = .021) in patients and by 8% ± 5 (44.6 msec ± 4.8, P = .012) in canines. In contrast, mean T2 STIR signal intensity (SI) of both hemorrhagic infarctions and nonhemorrhagic infarctions was higher than that in remote myocardium both in patients (hemorrhagic: 37% ± 19, P < .001; nonhemorrhagic: 78% ± 27, P < .001) and in canines (hemorrhagic: 42% ± 22, P < .001; nonhemorrhagic: 65% ± 22, P < .001). Consistent with STIR SI findings, mean T2 of both hemorrhagic (62.0 msec ± 4.9) and nonhemorrhagic (71.7 msec ± 7.3) infarctions in canines was elevated relative to mean T2 of remote myocardium (52.1 msec ± 4.8) by 18% ± 9 and 38% ± 13, respectively (P < .001 for both). CONCLUSION: T2* cardiac MR imaging is more suitable than T2 cardiac MR imaging in the detection and characterization of acute reperfusion myocardial hemorrhage. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13122397/-/DC1. RSNA, 2013
Authors: T Asanuma; K Tanabe; K Ochiai; H Yoshitomi; K Nakamura; Y Murakami; K Sano; T Shimada; R Murakami; S Morioka; S Beppu Journal: Circulation Date: 1997-07-15 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Andreas Kumar; Jordin D Green; Jane M Sykes; Pinhas Ephrat; Jeffrey J L Carson; Andrea J Mitchell; Gerald Wisenberg; Matthias G Friedrich Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-12
Authors: Mohammad I Zia; Nilesh R Ghugre; Kim A Connelly; Bradley H Strauss; John D Sparkes; Alexander J Dick; Graham A Wright Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Javier Ganame; Giancarlo Messalli; Steven Dymarkowski; Frank E Rademakers; Walter Desmet; Frans Van de Werf; Jan Bogaert Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2009-04-03 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Ryanne P Betgem; Guus A de Waard; Robin Nijveldt; Aernout M Beek; Javier Escaned; Niels van Royen Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Randi Drees; Rebecca A Johnson; Rebecca L Stepien; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; Christopher J François Journal: Vet Radiol Ultrasound Date: 2014-08-15 Impact factor: 1.363
Authors: Ryanne P Betgem; Guus A de Waard; Robin Nijveldt; Aernout M Beek; Javier Escaned; Niels van Royen Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: Maria Ferré-Vallverdú; Elena Sánchez-Lacuesta; Diego Plaza-López; José Luis Díez-Gil; Pilar Sepúlveda-Sanchis; Carolina Gil-Cayuela; Alicia Maceira-Gonzalez; Vicente Miró-Palau; Anastasio Montero-Argudo; Luis Martínez-Dolz; Begoña Igual-Muñoz Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Ivan Cokic; Avinash Kali; Hsin-Jung Yang; Raymond Yee; Richard Tang; Mourad Tighiouart; Xunzhang Wang; Warren S Jackman; Sumeet S Chugh; James A White; Rohan Dharmakumar Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.792