Literature DB >> 25848898

Integrated FDG PET/MR Imaging for the Assessment of Myocardial Salvage in Reperfused Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Felix Nensa1, Thorsten Poeppel1, Ercan Tezgah1, Philipp Heusch1, Kai Nassenstein1, Amir A Mahabadi1, Michael Forsting1, Andreas Bockisch1, Raimund Erbel1, Gerd Heusch1, Thomas Schlosser1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the size of the area with reduced myocardial fluorodeoxygluose (FDG) uptake with the endocardial surface area (ESA) method as a marker for the area at risk in patients with reperfused acute myocardial infarction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the local institutional review board. All patients gave written informed consent prior to their examination. Twenty-five patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 54 years ± 14) underwent prospective cardiac positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging after acute coronary occlusion and interventional reperfusion. On late gadolinium contrast enhancement images, the size of infarction and the area at risk, as determined with ESA, were assessed and compared with the area of reduced FDG uptake. Statistical analysis comprised paired t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, as well as Pearson r and Spearman ρ for correlations.
RESULTS: In patients with infarcted myocardium and reduced FDG uptake (n = 18), a good correlation between the area of reduced FDG uptake and the area at risk according to ESA was observed (r = .70, P = .001). The area of reduced FDG uptake (31% ± 11 of left ventricular myocardial mass) was larger than the size of the infarct (10% ± 10, P < .0001) and the area at risk according to ESA (17% ± 13, P < .0001). In six patients, no late contrast enhancement was seen, whereas all patients had an area of reduced FDG uptake (29% ± 8) in the perfusion territory of the culprit artery.
CONCLUSION: In patients with reperfused acute myocardial infarction, the area of reduced FDG uptake correlates with the area at risk as determined with the ESA method and is localized in the perfusion territory of the culprit artery in the absence of necrosis, although the area of reduced FDG uptake largely overestimates the size of the infarct and the ESA-based area at risk. © RSNA, 2015.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25848898     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015140564

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  17 in total

1.  Time to move to PET-MR for cardiovascular imaging.

Authors:  Olivier Lairez; Philip M Robson; Zahi A Fayad
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 5.952

2.  Cardiovascular PET/MR: "Not the end but the beginning".

Authors:  Thomas Hellmut Schindler
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2017-01-26       Impact factor: 5.952

3.  Could 82Rb-PET be the next best thing in evaluation of myocardial salvage?

Authors:  Efstathia Andrikopoulou; Steven G Lloyd
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2016-11-22       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 4.  Cardiovascular PET/MR: We need evidence, not hype.

Authors:  Afshin Farzaneh-Far; Raymond Y Kwong
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2016-11-29       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 5.  Practical guidelines for rigor and reproducibility in preclinical and clinical studies on cardioprotection.

Authors:  Hans Erik Bøtker; Derek Hausenloy; Ioanna Andreadou; Salvatore Antonucci; Kerstin Boengler; Sean M Davidson; Soni Deshwal; Yvan Devaux; Fabio Di Lisa; Moises Di Sante; Panagiotis Efentakis; Saveria Femminò; David García-Dorado; Zoltán Giricz; Borja Ibanez; Efstathios Iliodromitis; Nina Kaludercic; Petra Kleinbongard; Markus Neuhäuser; Michel Ovize; Pasquale Pagliaro; Michael Rahbek-Schmidt; Marisol Ruiz-Meana; Klaus-Dieter Schlüter; Rainer Schulz; Andreas Skyschally; Catherine Wilder; Derek M Yellon; Peter Ferdinandy; Gerd Heusch
Journal:  Basic Res Cardiol       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 17.165

Review 6.  Disease-specific cardiovascular positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging: a brief review of the current literature.

Authors:  Jeffrey M C Lau; Jie Zheng
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2016-06

Review 7.  PET/MR: Yet another Tesla?

Authors:  Markus Schwaiger; Karl Kunze; Christoph Rischpler; Stephan G Nekolla
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 5.952

Review 8.  Clinical use of cardiac PET/MRI: current state-of-the-art and potential future applications.

Authors:  Patrick Krumm; Stefanie Mangold; Sergios Gatidis; Konstantin Nikolaou; Felix Nensa; Fabian Bamberg; Christian la Fougère
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2018-03-10       Impact factor: 2.374

Review 9.  Cardiac MR imaging: current status and future direction.

Authors:  Maythem Saeed; Tu Anh Van; Roland Krug; Steven W Hetts; Mark W Wilson
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2015-08

Review 10.  The role of myocardial viability in contemporary cardiac practice.

Authors:  Abdelrahman Jamiel; Mohamad Ebid; Amjad M Ahmed; Dalia Ahmed; Mouaz H Al-Mallah
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 4.214

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.