Literature DB >> 34117271

Segmental strain analysis for the detection of chronic ischemic scars in non-contrast cardiac MRI cine images.

M Polacin1,2, M Karolyi1, M Eberhard1, A Gotschy1,3, B Baessler1, H Alkadhi1, S Kozerke2, R Manka4,5,6.   

Abstract

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) is considered the gold standard for scar detection after myocardial infarction. In times of increasing skepticism about gadolinium depositions in brain tissue and contraindications of gadolinium administration in some patient groups, tissue strain-based techniques for detecting ischemic scars should be further developed as part of clinical protocols. Therefore, the objective of the present work was to investigate whether segmental strain is noticeably affected in chronic infarcts and thus can be potentially used for infarct detection based on routinely acquired non-contrast cine images in patients with known coronary artery disease (CAD). Forty-six patients with known CAD and chronic scars in LGE images (5 female, mean age 52 ± 19 years) and 24 gender- and age-matched controls with normal cardiac MRI (2 female, mean age 47 ± 13 years) were retrospectively enrolled. Global (global peak circumferential [GPCS], global peak longitudinal [GPLS], global peak radial strain [GPRS]) and segmental (segmental peak circumferential [SPCS], segmental peak longitudinal [SPLS], segmental peak radial strain [SPRS]) strain parameters were calculated from standard non-contrast balanced SSFP cine sequences using commercially available software (Segment CMR, Medviso, Sweden). Visual wall motion assessment of short axis cine images as well as segmental circumferential strain calculations (endo-/epicardially contoured short axis cine and resulting polar plot strain map) of every patient and control were presented in random order to two independent blinded readers, which should localize potentially infarcted segments in those datasets blinded to LGE images and patient information. Global strain values were impaired in patients compared to controls (GPCS p = 0.02; GPLS p = 0.04; GPRS p = 0.01). Patients with preserved ejection fraction showed also impeded GPCS compared to healthy individuals (p = 0.04). In patients, mean SPCS was significantly impaired in subendocardially (-  5.4% ± 2) and in transmurally infarcted segments (- 1.2% ± 3) compared to remote myocardium (- 12.9% ± 3, p = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively). ROC analysis revealed an optimal cut-off value for SPCS for discriminating infarcted from remote myocardium of - 7.2% with a sensitivity of 89.4% and specificity of 85.7%. Mean SPRS was impeded in transmurally infarcted segments (15.9% ± 6) compared to SPRS of remote myocardium (31.4% ± 5; p = 0.02). The optimal cut-off value for SPRS for discriminating scar tissue from remote myocardium was 16.6% with a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 76.5%. 80.3% of all in LGE infarcted segments (118/147) were correctly localized in segmental circumferential strain calculations based on non-contrast cine images compared to 53.7% (79/147) of infarcted segments detected by visual wall motion assessment (p > 0.01). Global strain parameters are impaired in patients with chronic infarcts compared to controls. Mean SPCS and SPRS in scar tissue is impeded compared to remote myocardium in infarcts patients. Blinded to LGE images, two readers correctly localized 80% of infarcted segments in segmental circumferential strain calculations based on non-contrast cine images, in contrast to only 54% of infarcted segments detected due to wall motion abnormalities in visual wall motion assessment. Analysis of segmental circumferential strain shows a promising method for detection of chronic scars in routinely acquired, non-contrast cine images for patients who cannot receive or decline gadolinium.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 34117271     DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-90283-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  36 in total

1.  How we perform delayed enhancement imaging.

Authors:  Raymond J Kim; Dipan J Shah; Robert M Judd
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.364

Review 2.  Tissue Tracking Technology for Assessing Cardiac Mechanics: Principles, Normal Values, and Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Piet Claus; Alaa Mabrouk Salem Omar; Gianni Pedrizzetti; Partho P Sengupta; Eike Nagel
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2015-12

3.  Incremental value of adenosine stress cardiac magnetic resonance in coronary artery disease detection.

Authors:  Eulália Pereira; Nuno Bettencourt; Nuno Ferreira; Andreas Schuster; Amedeo Chiribiri; João Primo; Madalena Teixeira; Lino Simões; Adelino Leite-Moreira; José Silva-Cardoso; Vasco Gama; Eike Nagel
Journal:  Int J Cardiol       Date:  2013-08-12       Impact factor: 4.164

Review 4.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Myocardial Strain After Acute ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Kenneth Mangion; Christie McComb; Daniel A Auger; Frederick H Epstein; Colin Berry
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Imaging       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 7.792

5.  Biparametric Prostate MRI Influencing Care Patterns in a Caribbean Population.

Authors:  Matthew S Davenport; Prasad R Shankar
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-07-31

6.  Observed Deposition of Gadolinium in Bone Using a New Noninvasive in Vivo Biomedical Device: Results of a Small Pilot Feasibility Study.

Authors:  Michelle L Lord; David R Chettle; James L Gräfe; Michael D Noseworthy; Fiona E McNeill
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  Physiological Implications of Myocardial Scar Structure.

Authors:  William J Richardson; Samantha A Clarke; T Alexander Quinn; Jeffrey W Holmes
Journal:  Compr Physiol       Date:  2015-09-20       Impact factor: 9.090

8.  Left Ventricular Mass and Wall Thickness Measurements Using Echocardiography and Cardiac MRI in Patients with Fabry Disease: Clinical Significance of Discrepant Findings.

Authors:  Ciara O'Brien; Ian Britton; Gauri R Karur; Robert M Iwanochko; Chantal F Morel; Elsie T Nguyen; Paaladinesh Thavendiranathan; Anna Woo; Kate Hanneman
Journal:  Radiol Cardiothorac Imaging       Date:  2020-06-11

9.  Cardiac MRI Texture Analysis of T1 and T2 Maps in Patients with Infarctlike Acute Myocarditis.

Authors:  Bettina Baessler; Christian Luecke; Julia Lurz; Karin Klingel; Maximilian von Roeder; Suzanne de Waha; Christian Besler; David Maintz; Matthias Gutberlet; Holger Thiele; Philipp Lurz
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-08-07       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 10.  Cardiovascular magnetic resonance physics for clinicians: Part II.

Authors:  John D Biglands; Aleksandra Radjenovic; John P Ridgway
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 5.364

View more
  3 in total

1.  Segmental strain for scar detection in acute myocardial infarcts and in follow-up exams using non-contrast CMR cine sequences.

Authors:  Malgorzata Polacin; Mihaly Karolyi; Matthias Eberhard; Ioannis Matziris; Hatem Alkadhi; Sebastian Kozerke; Robert Manka
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 2.174

2.  A head-to-head comparison of myocardial strain by fast-strain encoding and feature tracking imaging in acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Walid El-Saadi; Jan Edvin Engvall; Joakim Alfredsson; Jan-Erik Karlsson; Marcelo Martins; Sofia Sederholm; Shaikh Faisal Zaman; Tino Ebbers; Johan Kihlberg
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-07-28

3.  Diagnostic performance of cardiac magnetic resonance segmental myocardial strain for detecting microvascular obstruction and late gadolinium enhancement in patients presenting after a ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Christoph Gräni; Anselm W Stark; Kady Fischer; Monika Fürholz; Andreas Wahl; Sophie A Erne; Adrian T Huber; Dominik P Guensch; René Vollenbroich; Andrea Ruberti; Stephan Dobner; Dik Heg; Stephan Windecker; Jonas Lanz; Thomas Pilgrim
Journal:  Front Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2022-07-14
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.