| Literature DB >> 26803468 |
Stephen Hamshere1, Daniel A Jones2,3, Cyril Pellaton4, Danielle Longchamp5, Tom Burchell6, Saidi Mohiddin7, James C Moon8, Jens Kastrup9, Didier Locca10,11, Steffen E Petersen12,13, Mark Westwood14, Anthony Mathur15,16.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: AAR measurement is useful when assessing the efficacy of reperfusion therapy and novel cardioprotective agents after myocardial infarction. Multi-slice (Typically 10-12) T2-STIR has been used widely for its measurement, typically with a short axis stack (SAX) covering the entire left ventricle, which can result in long acquisition times and multiple breath holds. This study sought to compare 3-slice T2-short-tau inversion recovery (T2- STIR) technique against conventional multi-slice T2-STIR technique for the assessment of area at risk (AAR).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26803468 PMCID: PMC4724400 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-016-0226-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Fig. 1Acquisition protocol of the 3-slice and 10-slice T2-STIR techniques. Screenshot demonstrating the different acquisition protocol levels for basal, mid and apical slices in the 3-slice and 10-slice techniques
Baseline characteristics
| 3-slice | 10-slice | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( |
| |
| Age (yr) | 57.0 ± 10.5 | 55.9 ± 11.4 | 0.6202 |
| Sex (M/F) | 71/11 | 75/12 | 0.3037 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 27.0 ± 3.8 | 27.4 ± 3.9 | 0.5277 |
| Ethnicity (Caucasian) (No. (%)) | 66 (80 %) | 71 (83.5 %) | 0.6113 |
| Medical History: | |||
| Hypertension (No. (%)) | 30 (36.5 %) | 28 (32.9 %) | 0.6235 |
| Hypercholesterolemia (No. (%)) | 24 (29.3 %) | 31 (26.4 %) | 0.3251 |
| Diabetes mellitus (No. (%)) | 10 (12.2 %) | 9 (11.6 %) | 0.5766 |
| Active smoker (No. (%)) | 42 (51.2 %) | 47 (55.3 %) | 0.6004 |
| Previous MI (No. (%)) | 1 (1.2 %) | 2 (2.4 %) | 0.5841 |
| Previous PCI (No. (%)) | 1 (1.2 %) | 3 (3.5 %) | 0.3320 |
| Family history (No. (%)) | 25 (30.5 %) | 19 (22.4 %) | 0.2354 |
| Culprit Vessel: | <0.0001 | ||
| LAD (No. (%)) | 82 (100 %) | 23 (27 %) | |
| LCx (No. (%)) | 0 (0 %) | 11 (13 %) | |
| RCA (No. (%)) | 0 (0 %) | 51 (60 %) | |
| Timings: | |||
| Chest Pain to PCI (min) | 194.5 ± 25.4 | 201.0 ± 32.2 | 0.8459 |
| Infarct Size (%) | 17.01 ± 8.88 | 18.02 ± 8.82 | 0.4543 |
| AAR (%) | 27.9 ± 8.3 | 27.27 ± 7.3 | 0.9800 |
Plus-minus values are mean ± SEM. No denotes number
BMI body mass index, AAR area at risk, LAD left anterior descending artery, LCx circumflex artery, RCA right coronary artery
Fig. 2Correlation coefficient between 3-slice AAR and 10-slice AAR. Association between 3-slice STIR area at risk and 10-slice STIR area at risk assessed by CMR on sub group 10-slice STIR group
Fig. 3Scatter-plot of angiographic risk score versus 10-slice STIR AAR. Panel a shows the relationship between 10-slice STIR area at risk assessed by CMR and BARI angiographic risk. Panel b shows the relationship between 10-slice STIR area at risk assessed by CMR and APPROACH angiographic risk
Fig. 4Scatter-plot of angiographic risk score versus 3-slice STIR AAR. Panel a shows the relationship between 3-slice STIR area at risk assessed by CMR and BARI angiographic risk. Panel b shows the relationship between 3-slice STIR area at risk assessed by CMR and APPROACH angiographic risk
Intraclass correlation coefficients between angiographic and cardiovascular magnetic resonance methods of 3-slice and 10-slice oedema CMR (T2-STIR) imaging techniques
| 3-slice Assessment | T2 STIR | APPROACH | BARI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infarct ESA | 0.50 (0.30–0.66)*** | 0.27 (0.12–0.41)** | 0.19 (0.05–0.34)** |
| Oedema ESA | 0.91 (0.86–0.95)*** | 0.36 (0.22–0.49)** | 0.27 (0.12–0.41)* |
| Infarct % | 0.47 (0.26–0.64)*** | 0.28 (0.13–0.41)** | 0.20 (0.05–0.35)* |
| BARI | 0.35 (0.21–0.49)*** | 0.88 (0.85–0.91)*** | |
| APPROACH | 0.42 (0.29–0.55)*** | ||
| 10-slice Assessment | T2 STIR | APPROACH | BARI |
| Infarct ESA | 0.64 (0.50–0.75)*** | 0.44 (0.25–0.60)*** | 0.28 (0.07–0.47)** |
| Oedema ESA | 0.89 (0.84–0.93)*** | 0.40 (0.20–0.56)*** | 0.17 (–0.05–0.37) |
| Infarct % | 0.73 (0.61–0.82)*** | 0.50 (0.32–0.64)*** | 0.33 (0.13–0.51)** |
| BARI | 0.27 (0.06–0.46)*** | 0.85 (0.78–0.90)*** | |
| APPROACH | 0.46 (0.27–0.61)*** |
Data are expressed intraclass correlation coefficients (confidence interval). p value <0.05 = *, <0.01 = **, <0.001 = ***. APPROACH Alberta provincial project for outcome assessment in coronary heart disease, BARI bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation myocardial jeopardy index, ESA endocardial surface area, STIR T2, short tau inversion recovery, LAD left anterior descending artery
Fig. 5Correlation coefficient between infarct size and AAR. Panel a shows the association between 3-slice STIR area at risk assessed by CMR and infarct size. Panel b shows the association between 10-slice STIR area at risk assessed by CMR and infarct size
Fig. 6Myocardial salvage assessment between 3-Slice and 10-Slice technique. Panel a shows the relationship between 3-slice STIR area at risk assessed by CMR and infarct size. Panel b shows the relationship between 10-slice STIR area at risk assessed by CMR and infarct size
Fig. 7Comparison of acquisition a and analysis b time between 3-slice and 10-slice imaging technique. Panel a shows the relationship between 3-slice STIR area at risk assessed by CMR and infarct size. Panel b shows the relationship between 10-slice STIR area at risk assessed by CMR and infarct size
Fig. 8Bland-Altman plot for the inter-observer variability of the 3-slice STIR AAR assessment