BACKGROUND: We evaluate whether circumferential strain derived from grid-tagged CMR is a better method for assessing improvement in segmental contractile function after STEMI compared to late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). METHODS: STEMI patients post primary PCI underwent baseline CMR (day 3) and follow-up (day 90). Cine, grid-tagged and LGE images were acquired. Baseline LGE infarct hyperenhancement was categorised as ≤25 %, 26-50 %, 51-75 % and >75 % hyperenhancement. The segmental baseline circumferential strain (CS) and circumferential strain rate (CSR) were calculated from grid-tagged images. Segments demonstrating an improvement in wall motion of ≥1 grade compared to baseline were regarded as having improved segmental contractile-function. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (aged 58 ± 12 years) and 179 infarct segments were analysed. A baseline CS cutoff of -5 % had sensitivity of 89 % and specificity of 70 % for detection of improvement in segmental-contractile-function. On receiver-operating characteristic analysis for predicting improvement in contractile function, AUC for baseline CS (0.82) compared favourably to LGE hyperenhancement (0.68), MVO (0.67) and baseline-CSR (0.74). On comparison of AUCs, baseline CS was superior to LGE hyperenhancement and MVO in predicting improvement in contractile function (P < 0.001). On multivariate-analysis, baseline CS was the independent predictor of improvement in segmental contractile function (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Grid-tagged CMR-derived baseline CS is a superior predictor of improvement in segmental contractile function, providing incremental value when added to LGE hyperenhancement and MVO following STEMI. KEY POINTS: Baseline CS predicts contractile function recovery better than LGE and MVO following STEMI. Baseline CS predicts contractile function recovery better than baseline CSR following STEMI. Baseline CS provides incremental value to LGE and MVO following STEMI.
BACKGROUND: We evaluate whether circumferential strain derived from grid-tagged CMR is a better method for assessing improvement in segmental contractile function after STEMI compared to late gadolinium enhancement (LGE). METHODS: STEMI patients post primary PCI underwent baseline CMR (day 3) and follow-up (day 90). Cine, grid-tagged and LGE images were acquired. Baseline LGE infarct hyperenhancement was categorised as ≤25 %, 26-50 %, 51-75 % and >75 % hyperenhancement. The segmental baseline circumferential strain (CS) and circumferential strain rate (CSR) were calculated from grid-tagged images. Segments demonstrating an improvement in wall motion of ≥1 grade compared to baseline were regarded as having improved segmental contractile-function. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (aged 58 ± 12 years) and 179 infarct segments were analysed. A baseline CS cutoff of -5 % had sensitivity of 89 % and specificity of 70 % for detection of improvement in segmental-contractile-function. On receiver-operating characteristic analysis for predicting improvement in contractile function, AUC for baseline CS (0.82) compared favourably to LGE hyperenhancement (0.68), MVO (0.67) and baseline-CSR (0.74). On comparison of AUCs, baseline CS was superior to LGE hyperenhancement and MVO in predicting improvement in contractile function (P < 0.001). On multivariate-analysis, baseline CS was the independent predictor of improvement in segmental contractile function (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Grid-tagged CMR-derived baseline CS is a superior predictor of improvement in segmental contractile function, providing incremental value when added to LGE hyperenhancement and MVO following STEMI. KEY POINTS: Baseline CS predicts contractile function recovery better than LGE and MVO following STEMI. Baseline CS predicts contractile function recovery better than baseline CSR following STEMI. Baseline CS provides incremental value to LGE and MVO following STEMI.
Authors: Dennis T L Wong; James D Richardson; Rishi Puri; Adam J Nelson; Angela G Bertaso; Karen S L Teo; Matthew I Worthley; Stephen G Worthley Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-03-25 Impact factor: 5.315
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: Luciano C Amado; Bernhard L Gerber; Sandeep N Gupta; Dan W Rettmann; Gilberto Szarf; Robert Schock; Khurram Nasir; Dara L Kraitchman; João A C Lima Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2004-12-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: W J Rogers; C M Kramer; G Geskin; Y L Hu; T M Theobald; D A Vido; S Petruolo; N Reichek Journal: Circulation Date: 1999-02-16 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: Gunnar K Lund; Alexander Stork; Kai Muellerleile; Achim A Barmeyer; Martin P Bansmann; Meike Knefel; Ulrike Schlichting; Martin Müller; Pablo E Verde; Gerhard Adam; Thomas Meinertz; Maythem Saeed Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gert Klug; Sebastian Johannes Reinstadler; Hans-Josef Feistritzer; Christian Kremser; Johannes P Schwaiger; Martin Reindl; Johannes Mair; Silvana Müller; Agnes Mayr; Wolfgang-Michael Franz; Bernhard Metzler Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: El-Sayed H Ibrahim; Dhiraj Baruah; Matthew Budde; Jason Rubenstein; Anne Frei; Rachel Schlaak; Elizabeth Gore; Carmen Bergom Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Steve W Leung; Theresa M Ratajczak; Mohamed Abo-Aly; Elica Shokri; Ahmed Abdel-Latif; Jonathan F Wenk Journal: J Biomech Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: Steve W Leung; Richard J Charnigo; Theresa Ratajczak; Mohamed Abo-Aly; Elica Shokri; Ahmed Abdel-Latif; Jonathan F Wenk Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Pankaj Garg; Ananth Kidambi; Peter P Swoboda; James R J Foley; Tarique A Musa; David P Ripley; Bara Erhayiem; Laura E Dobson; Adam K McDiarmid; Graham J Fent; Philip Haaf; John P Greenwood; Sven Plein Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Boyang Liu; Ahmed M Dardeer; William E Moody; Manvir K Hayer; Shanat Baig; Anna M Price; Francisco Leyva; Nicola C Edwards; Richard P Steeds Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Kenneth Mangion; David Carrick; Guillaume Clerfond; Christopher Rush; Christie McComb; Keith G Oldroyd; Mark C Petrie; Hany Eteiba; Mitchell Lindsay; Margaret McEntegart; Stuart Hood; Stuart Watkins; Andrew Davie; Daniel A Auger; Xiaodong Zhong; Frederick H Epstein; Caroline E Haig; Colin Berry Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Joëlle Elias; Ivo M van Dongen; Loes P Hoebers; Dagmar M Ouweneel; Bimmer E P M Claessen; Truls Råmunddal; Peep Laanmets; Erlend Eriksen; Jan J Piek; René J van der Schaaf; Dan Ioanes; Robin Nijveldt; Jan G Tijssen; José P S Henriques; Alexander Hirsch Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 5.315