Carlo Tessa1, Jacopo Del Meglio2, Alessio Lilli2, Stefano Diciotti3, Luca Salvatori4, Marco Giannelli5, Andreas Greiser6, Claudio Vignali4, Giancarlo Casolo2. 1. Department of Radiology, Versilia Hospital, Via Aurelia 335, 55041, Lido di Camaiore, Italy. ctessa@sirm.org. 2. Department of Cardiology, Versilia Hospital, Via Aurelia 335, 55041, Lido di Camaiore, Italy. 3. Department of Electrical, Electronic, and Information Engineering "Guglielmo Marconi", University of Bologna, Via Venezia 52, 47521, Cesena, Italy. 4. Department of Radiology, Versilia Hospital, Via Aurelia 335, 55041, Lido di Camaiore, Italy. 5. Unit of Medical Physics, Pisa University Hospital "Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana", Via Roma 67, 56126, Pisa, Italy. 6. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Karl-Schall-Str. 6, 91052, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
AIMS: To test T1 and T2 mapping in the assessment of acute myocardial injury in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), evaluated before revascularization. METHODS: Forty-seven patients with acute NSTEMI underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) at 1.5 T, including T1 and T2 mapping. RESULTS: Coronary angiography (CA) evidenced an obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in 36 patients (80%) and a non-obstructive CAD in 11 patients (20%). Edema was detected in 51.1/65.9% of patients in T1/T2 maps, respectively. This difference was due to artifacts in T1 maps. T1/T2 values were significantly higher in the infarcted myocardium (IM) compared with the remote myocardium (RM) (in T1: 1151.6 ± 53.5 ms vs. 958.2 ± 38.6 ms, respectively; in T2: 69 ± 6 ms vs. 51.9 ± 2.9 ms, respectively; p < 0.0001 for both). We found both an obstructive CAD at CA and myocardial edema at CMR in 53.2% of patients, while 8.5% of patients had a non-obstructive CAD and no edema. However, 25.5% of patients had an obstructive CAD without edema, while 12.8% of patients showed edema despite a non-obstructive CAD. Furthermore, in 6 of the edema-positive patients with multi-vessels obstructive CAD, CMR identified myocardial edema in a vascular territory different from that of the lesion supposed to be the culprit at CA. CONCLUSIONS: In a non-negligible percentage of NSTEMI patients, T1 and T2 mapping detect myocardial edema without significant stenosis at CA and vice versa. Therefore, CA and CMR edema imaging might provide complementary information in the evaluation of NSTEMI.
AIMS: To test T1 and T2 mapping in the assessment of acute myocardial injury in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), evaluated before revascularization. METHODS: Forty-seven patients with acute NSTEMI underwent cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) at 1.5 T, including T1 and T2 mapping. RESULTS: Coronary angiography (CA) evidenced an obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in 36 patients (80%) and a non-obstructive CAD in 11 patients (20%). Edema was detected in 51.1/65.9% of patients in T1/T2 maps, respectively. This difference was due to artifacts in T1 maps. T1/T2 values were significantly higher in the infarcted myocardium (IM) compared with the remote myocardium (RM) (in T1: 1151.6 ± 53.5 ms vs. 958.2 ± 38.6 ms, respectively; in T2: 69 ± 6 ms vs. 51.9 ± 2.9 ms, respectively; p < 0.0001 for both). We found both an obstructive CAD at CA and myocardial edema at CMR in 53.2% of patients, while 8.5% of patients had a non-obstructive CAD and no edema. However, 25.5% of patients had an obstructive CAD without edema, while 12.8% of patients showed edema despite a non-obstructive CAD. Furthermore, in 6 of the edema-positive patients with multi-vessels obstructive CAD, CMR identified myocardial edema in a vascular territory different from that of the lesion supposed to be the culprit at CA. CONCLUSIONS: In a non-negligible percentage of NSTEMI patients, T1 and T2 mapping detect myocardial edema without significant stenosis at CA and vice versa. Therefore, CA and CMR edema imaging might provide complementary information in the evaluation of NSTEMI.
Authors: Manuel D Cerqueira; Neil J Weissman; Vasken Dilsizian; Alice K Jacobs; Sanjiv Kaul; Warren K Laskey; Dudley J Pennell; John A Rumberger; Thomas Ryan; Mario S Verani Journal: Circulation Date: 2002-01-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Darach O h-Ici; Sarah Jeuthe; Nadya Al-Wakeel; Felix Berger; Titus Kuehne; Sebastian Kozerke; Daniel R Messroghli Journal: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-02-23 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Ursula Reiter; Gert Reiter; Katrin Dorr; Andreas Greiser; Ralph Maderthaner; Michael Fuchsjäger Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Heerajnarain Bulluck; Jennifer A Bryant; Mei Xing Lim; Xiao Wei Tan; Manish Ramlall; Rohin Francis; Tushar Kotecha; Hector A Cabrera-Fuentes; Daniel S Knight; Marianna Fontana; James C Moon; Derek J Hausenloy Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Rodrigo Fernández-Jiménez; Manuel Barreiro-Pérez; Ana Martin-García; Javier Sánchez-González; Jaume Agüero; Carlos Galán-Arriola; Jaime García-Prieto; Elena Díaz-Pelaez; Pedro Vara; Irene Martinez; Ivan Zamarro; Beatriz Garde; Javier Sanz; Valentin Fuster; Pedro L Sánchez; Borja Ibanez Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jamie Layland; Keith G Oldroyd; Nick Curzen; Arvind Sood; Kanarath Balachandran; Raj Das; Shahid Junejo; Nadeem Ahmed; Matthew M Y Lee; Aadil Shaukat; Anna O'Donnell; Julian Nam; Andrew Briggs; Robert Henderson; Alex McConnachie; Colin Berry Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Heerajnarain Bulluck; Steven K White; Stefania Rosmini; Anish Bhuva; Thomas A Treibel; Marianna Fontana; Amna Abdel-Gadir; Anna Herrey; Charlotte Manisty; Simon M Y Wan; Ashley Groves; Leon Menezes; James C Moon; Derek J Hausenloy Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: G J H Snel; M van den Boomen; L M Hernandez; C T Nguyen; D E Sosnovik; B K Velthuis; R H J A Slart; R J H Borra; N H J Prakken Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 5.364