| Literature DB >> 32522198 |
Tomaž Podlesnikar1,2,3, Gonzalo Pizarro4,5,6, Rodrigo Fernández-Jiménez4,5,7, Jose M Montero-Cabezas1, Nina Greif8, Javier Sánchez-González9, Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci10, Nina Ajmone Marsan1, Zlatko Fras3, Jeroen J Bax1, Valentin Fuster4,7, Borja Ibáñez4,5,11, Victoria Delgado12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the effect of early intravenous metoprolol treatment, microvascular obstruction (MVO), intramyocardial hemorrhage (IMH) and adverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling on the evolution of infarct and remote zone circumferential strain after acute anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with feature-tracking cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR).Entities:
Keywords: Feature-tracking cardiovascular magnetic resonance; Intramyocardial hemorrhage; Intravenous metoprolol; Left ventricular remodeling; Microvascular obstruction; ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
Year: 2020 PMID: 32522198 PMCID: PMC7288440 DOI: 10.1186/s12968-020-00638-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson ISSN: 1097-6647 Impact factor: 5.364
Fig. 1Definition of the infarct and remote zone myocardium. a, In case the culprit coronary artery lesion was in the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD), the infarct zone was defined according to the 16-segment model of the left ventricle (LV) with the segments 1–2, 7–8 and 13–16 and the rest of the LV myocardium was defined as the remote zone. b, If the culprit lesion was found in mid or distal LAD, the infarct zone included segments 7–8 and 13–16 and the rest of LV myocardium was defined as the remote zone. LAD, left anterior descending; LCX, left circumflex; LM, left main
The effect of early intravenous metoprolol on infarct and remote zone strain
| Infarct zone circumferential strain (%) | Remote zone circumferential strain (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 week | 6 months | MD [95% CI] | 1 week | 6 months | MD [95% CI] | |||
| −9.9 ± 7.6 | − 15.7 ± 7.5 | −5.7 [− 6.8 to − 4.6] | < 0.001 | −19.7 ± 3.6 | − 19.2 ± 4.1 | 0.6 [− 0.2 to 1.3] | 0.153 | |
| −7.2 ± 10.1 | −13.2 ± 8.3 | −6.0 [− 7.7 to − 4.2] | < 0.001 | − 19.3 ± 7.5 | − 19.3 ± 3.7 | 0.0 [− 1.4 to 1.4] | 0.984 | |
| −2.7 [− 5.3 to − 0.1] | −2.5 [− 4.7 to − 0.2] | −0.5 [− 2.1 to 1.2] | 0.1 [− 1.0 to 1.2] | |||||
| 0.038 | 0.033 | 0.589 | 0.876 | |||||
CI confidence interval, MD mean difference
*the P-values for the strain difference between 6 months and 1 week
†the P-values for the strain difference between the group
Fig. 2The infarct zone and the remote zone strain after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in patients receiving early intravenous metoprolol versus controls. Left ventricular (LV) infarct zone and remote zone strains are schematically presented with the mean values in patients receiving early intravenous metoprolol and in patients receiving conventional treatment at 1 week and at 6 months after STEMI. LV was split into the infarct and the remote zone as explained in Fig. 1. In order to schematically present different infarct territories in patients with proximal left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) coronary artery infarcts and mid-distal LAD infarcts, fainter colors were used to paint the basal anterior and anteroseptal segments, signifying that these segments were either included in the infarct zone (proximal LAD infarcts) or remote zone (mid-distal LAD infarcts) strain analysis. Comparisons between 1-week and 6-month strains are graphically represented on the right-hand side using the same model, with corresponding P-values shown separately for the infarct and remote zone strain analysis. In addition, comparisons between the metoprolol and the control group are shown in the bottom row
Fig. 3A patient with a proximal LAD infarct receiving standard STEMI treatment. a, balanced steady state free precession (bSSFP) end-diastolic images with endo- and epi-cardial contours. The patient developed adverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling (defined as ≥ 20% increase in LV end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) and had a slight reduction in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months after STEMI. b, T2-weighted short tau inversion recovery (STIR) images, showing the presence of edema (white arrows) and intramyocardial hemorrhage (IMH) (yellow arrowheads) at 1-week after STEMI. c, late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) images, showing the presence of acute ischemic injury (white arrows) with microvascular obstruction (MVO, yellow arrowheads) at 1 week after STEMI and infarct scar (white arrows) at 6-months. d, end-systolic bSSFP images with feature-tracking circumferential LV strain overlay. At 6 months the infarct zone circumferential strain improved despite the presence of a huge infarct with IMH and MVO in the acute phase, while the remote zone strain slightly declined bSSFP, balanced steady state free precession; ED, end-diastolic; ES, end-systolic; IMH, intramyocardial hemorrhage; LAD, left anterior descending coronary artery, LGE, late gadolinium enhancement; LV, left ventricular; LVEDV, left ventricular end-diastolic volume; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; MVO, microvascular obstruction; SSFP, steady-state free precession; STEMI, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; STIR, short tau inversion recovery.
Fig. 4A patient with a mid-LAD infarct receiving early intravenous metoprolol. a, bSSFP end-diastolic images with endo- and epi-cardial contours. The LV volumes remained stable and the LVEF increased at 6 months after STEMI. b, T2-STIR images showing the presence of edema (white arrows) at 1-week after STEMI. c, LGE images showing the presence of acute ischemic injury/infarct scar (black arrows) at 1 week/6-months after STEMI. d, end-systolic bSSFP images with feature-tracking circumferential LV strain overlay. At 6 months the infarct zone circumferential strain improved while the remote zone strain remained stable
The same abbreviations were used as in Fig. 3
The effect of microvascular obstruction (MVO) on infarct and remote zone strain
| Infarct zone circumferential strain (%) | Remote zone circumferential strain (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 week | 6 months | MD [95% CI] | 1 week | 6 months | MD [95% CI] | |||
| − 5.1 ± 8.8 | −11.2 ± 7.8 | −6.2 [− 7.7 to − 4.7] | < 0.001 | − 19.3 ± 7.0 | − 19.2 ± 3.8 | 0.1 [− 1.0 to 1.3] | 0.828 | |
| −14.2 ± 6.1 | − 19.5 ± 5.1 | − 5.3 [− 6.5 to − 4.1] | < 0.001 | − 19.7 ± 3.4 | −19.2 ± 4.2 | 0.5 [− 0.5 to 1.5] | 0.313 | |
| 9.2 [6.9 to 11.5] | 8.3 [6.5 to 10.2] | 0.4 [−1.4 to 2.1] | 0.0 [−1.2 to 1.1] | |||||
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.677 | 0.981 | |||||
CI confidence interval, MD mean difference, MVO microvascular obstruction
*the P-values for the strain difference between 6 months and 1 week
†the P-values for the strain difference between the group
The effect of intramyocardial hemorrhage (IMH) on infarct and remote zone strain
| Infarct zone circumferential strain (%) | Remote zone circumferential strain (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 week | 6 months | MD [95% CI] | 1 week | 6 months | MD [95% CI] | |||
| −4.1 ± 9.4 | −10.5 ± 7.8 | −6.4 [−8.3 to − 4.4] | < 0.001 | −19.2 ± 7.7 | − 19.3 ± 3.7 | −0.2 [− 1.7 to 1.4] | 0.852 | |
| − 11.9 ± 7.1 | −17.4 ± 6.8 | −5.5 [− 6.5 to − 4.4] | < 0.001 | −19.8 ± 4.0 | − 19.1 ± 4.1 | 0.6 [− 0.1 to 1.4] | 0.102 | |
| 7.8 [5.5 to 10.2] | 6.9 [4.8 to 9.0] | 0.6 [−1.1 to 2.3] | −0.2 [− 1.3 to 0.9] | |||||
| < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.504 | 0.736 | |||||
CI confidence interval, IMH intramyocardial hemorrhage, MD mean difference
*the P-values for the strain difference between 6 months and 1 week
†the P-values for the strain difference between the group
The effect of left ventricular (LV) remodeling on infarct and remote zone strain
| Infarct zone circumferential strain (%) | Remote zone circumferential strain (%) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 week | 6 months | MD [95% CI] | 1 week | 6 months | MD [95% CI] | |||
| − 7.6 ± 8.2 | −12.6 ± 9.4 | −5.0 [−6.6 to − 3.4] | < 0.001 | − 20.2 ± 3.7 | −19.1 ± 3.7 | 1.1 [0.1 to 2.1] | 0.036 | |
| −9.0 ± 9.3 | −15.1 ± 7.3 | −6.2 [− 7.4 to − 4.9] | < 0.001 | −19.2 ± 6.5 | − 19.3 ± 4.0 | 0.0 [− 1.0 to 1.0] | 0.991 | |
| 1.3 [−1.6 to 4.2] | 2.5 [−0.4 to 5.4] | −1.0 [− 2.8 to 0.9] | 0.1 [− 1.1 to 1.4] | |||||
| 0.366 | 0.087 | 0.317 | 0.822 | |||||
CI confidence interval, LV left ventricular, MD mean difference
*the P-values for the strain difference between 6 months and 1 week
†the P-values for the strain difference between the group