Literature DB >> 29044903

Native T1 mapping for characterization of acute and chronic myocardial infarction in swine: Comparison with contrast-enhanced MRI.

Xi Liu1,2, Jiang-Long Hou3, Zhi-Gang Yang2, Chun-Chao Xia2, Lin-Jun Xie1, Peng-Fei Ye1, Wan-Lin Peng2, Lei Li2, Meng-Xi Yang1, Ying-Kun Guo1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Both acute and chronic myocardial infarction (AMI and CMI, respectively) exhibit delayed enhancement; however, clinical decision-making processes frequently require the differentiation of these two types of myocardial injury.
PURPOSE: To investigate the reliability of AMI and CMI characterization using native T1 mapping and its feasibility for discriminating AMI from CMI. STUDY TYPE: Case-control. ANIMAL MODEL: The study cohort comprised 12 AMI (mean post-MI, 3.75 ± 1.29 days) and 15 CMI (mean post-MI, 39.53 ± 6.10 days) Bama mini-pigs. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP), segmented-turbo-FLASH-PSIR, and modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) sequences at 3.0T. ASSESSMENT: The infarct sizes were compared on matching short-axis slices of late-gadolinium-enhanced (LGE) images and T1 maps by two experienced radiologists. STATISTICAL TESTS: The infarct sizes were compared on matching short-axis slices of LGE images and T1 maps, and agreement was determined using linear regression and Bland-Altman analyses. The native T1 values were compared between AMI and CMI models (independent sample t-test). The intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess inter- and intraobserver variability.
RESULTS: Measured infarct sizes did not differ between native T1 mapping and LGE images (AMI: P = 0.913; CMI: P = 0.233), and good agreement was observed between the two techniques (AMI: bias, -3.38 ± 19.38%; R2  = 0.96; CMI: bias, -10.55 ± 10.90%; R2  = 0.90). However, the native infarction myocardium T1 values and the T1 signal intensity ratio of infarct and remote myocardium (T1 SI ratio) did not differ significantly between AMI and CMI (P = 0.173). DATA
CONCLUSION: Noncontrast native T1 mapping can accurately determine acute and chronic infarct areas as well as conventional LGE imaging; however, it cannot distinguish acute from chronic MI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1406-1414.
© 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  T1 mapping; cardiac magnetic resonance; late-gadolinium-enhanced; myocardial infarction

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29044903     DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25871

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  5 in total

Review 1.  Incidence and predictors of acute coronary syndrome within a year following a negative stress test-a false sense of security: is routine screening any useful?

Authors:  Issa Pour-Ghaz; Tamunoinemi Bob-Manuel; Hemnishil K Marella; Jayna Kelly; Amit Nanda; William Paul Skelton; Rami N Khouzam
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-01

2.  Non-contrast myocardial infarct scar assessment using a hybrid native T1 and magnetization transfer imaging sequence at 1.5T.

Authors:  Chong Duan; Yanjie Zhu; Jihye Jang; Jennifer Rodriguez; Ulf Neisius; Ahmed S Fahmy; Reza Nezafat
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2018-12-18       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Myocardial blood flow is the dominant factor influencing cardiac magnetic resonance adenosine stress T2.

Authors:  Jill J Weyers; Venkat Ramanan; Ahsan Javed; Jennifer Barry; Melissa Larsen; Krishna Nayak; Graham A Wright; Nilesh R Ghugre
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2021-11-17       Impact factor: 4.044

Review 4.  Recent Advances in Fibrosis and Scar Segmentation From Cardiac MRI: A State-of-the-Art Review and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Yinzhe Wu; Zeyu Tang; Binghuan Li; David Firmin; Guang Yang
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 4.566

5.  T1 and T2∗ relaxation time in the parcellated myocardium of healthy Taiwanese participants: A single center study.

Authors:  Chih-Chien Tsai; Shu-Hang Ng; Yao-Liang Chen; Yu-Hsiang Juan; Chao-Hung Wang; Gigin Lin; Chih-Wei Chien; Yu-Ching Lin; Yu-Chun Lin; Yu-Chieh Huang; Pei-Ching Huang; Jiun-Jie Wang
Journal:  Biomed J       Date:  2020-08-27       Impact factor: 7.892

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.