| Literature DB >> 29116176 |
Heerajnarain Bulluck1,2, Stefania Rosmini3, Amna Abdel-Gadir3, Anish N Bhuva3, Thomas A Treibel3, Marianna Fontana4,5, Daniel S Knight5, Sabrina Nordin3, Alex Sirker4,3, Anna S Herrey3, Charlotte Manisty4,3, James C Moon4,3, Derek J Hausenloy6,4,3,7,8,9.
Abstract
In chronic myocardial infarction (MI), segments with a transmural extent of infarct (TEI) of ≤50% are defined as being viable. However, in the acute phase of an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) has been demonstrated to overestimate MI size and TEI. We aimed to identify the optimal cut-off of TEI by cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) for defining viability during the acute phase of an MI, using ≤50% TEI at follow-up as the reference standard. 40 STEMI patients reperfused by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) underwent a CMR at 4 ± 2 days and 5 ± 2 months. The large majority of segments with 1-25%TEI and 26-50%TEI that were viable acutely were also viable at follow-up (59/59, 100% and 75/82, 96% viable respectively). 56/84(67%) segments with 51-75%TEI but only 4/63(6%) segments with 76-100%TEI were reclassified as viable at follow-up. TEI on the acute CMR scan had an area-under-the-curve of 0.87 (95% confidence interval of 0.82 to 0.91) and ≤75%TEI had a sensitivity of 98% but a specificity of 66% to predict viability at follow-up. Therefore, the optimal cut-off by CMR during the acute phase of an MI to predict viability was ≤75% TEI and this would have important implications for patients undergoing viability testing prior to revascularization during the acute phase.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29116176 PMCID: PMC5676975 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-15353-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Patient characteristics
| Number | |
|---|---|
| Number of patients | 40 |
| Male (%) | 35 (88%) |
| Age (age) | 59 ± 13 |
| Diabetes Mellitus | 8 (20%) |
| Hypertension | 14 (35%) |
| Smoking | 12 (30%) |
| Dyslipidemia | 14 (35%) |
| Chest pain onset to PPCI time (minutes) | 267 [122–330] |
| Drug-eluting stent use (%) | 38 (95%) |
| Infarct artery (%) LAD RCA Cx | 24 (60%)14 (35%) 2 (5%) |
| TIMI flow Pre/ Post PPCI (%) 0 1 2 3 | 33 (83%)/ 1(3%) 0 (0%)/ 0 (0%) 3 (8%)/ 8 (20%) 4 (10%)/ 31 (78%) |
| CMR findings – acute/follow-up LV EDV/ml LV ESV/ml LV EF/% LV Mass/g MI size/ %LV MI size/ g MVO/% | 172 ± 38/182 ± 49 90 ± 30/ 88 ± 38 49 ± 8/53 ± 10112 ± 35/104 ± 2627.4 ± 14.6/19.5 ± 10.520.2 ± 13.6/14.4 ± 9.4 26 (65%)/ 0 |
LAD: left anterior descending artery; RCA: right coronary artery; Cx: circumflex artery; TIMI: thrombolysis in myocardial infarction; CMR: cardiovascular magnetic resonance; LV: left ventricular; EDV: end diastolic volume; ESV: end systolic volume; EF: ejection fraction; MI: myocardial infarction; MVO: microvascular obstruction.
Figure 1An example of MI size overestimation in the acute phase in a patient with an anterior STEMI. This patient presented with an anterior STEMI that was reperfused by PPCI. The left hand side panel depicts a large area of LGE with areas of MVO (surrounded by LGE) on the acute scan (red arrows) and the corresponding LGE on the follow-up scan (red arrows) on the right hand side panel. The area of non-infarcted myocardium is present on the epicardial side of the MVO on the acute scan and is more obvious on the follow-up scan. The follow-up scan shows the resolution of the MVO and thinning of the LGE area. The follow-up LGE images were rotated to match the acute scan orientation.
Figure 2Distribution of TEI segments on the acute CMR scan and subsequent viability at follow-up. This figure shows the distribution of myocardial segments with LGE in the 4 groups of TEI on the acute scan, and subdivided as viable or not at follow-up.
Figure 3Distribution of TEI segments on the acute scan and wall motion recovery. This figure shows the distribution of segment with LGE in the 4 groups of TEI on the acute scan and subdivided by whether there was a segmental wall motion recovery at follow-up or not.
Figure 4Viability and wall motion recovery. This figure shows the distribution of viable and non-viable segments and their subsequent wall motion recovery.