Xingmin Guan1,2, Yinyin Chen1,3,4, Hsin-Jung Yang1, Xinheng Zhang1,2, Daoyuan Ren3,4, Jane Sykes5, John Butler5, Hui Han1, Mengsu Zeng3,4, Frank S Prato5, Rohan Dharmakumar6,7. 1. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, PACT Bldg - Suite 400, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Cardiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. 5. Lawson Health Research Institute, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Biomedical Imaging Research Institute, PACT Bldg - Suite 400, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Los Angeles, CA, USA. rohandkumar@csmc.edu. 7. University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. rohandkumar@csmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intramyocardial hemorrhage (IMH) within myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with major adverse cardiovascular events. Bright-blood T2*-based cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has emerged as the reference standard for non-invasive IMH detection. Despite this, the dark-blood T2*-based CMR is becoming interchangeably used with bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR in both clinical and preclinical settings for IMH detection. To date however, the relative merits of dark-blood T2*-weighted with respect to bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR for IMH characterization has not been studied. We investigated the diagnostic capacity of dark-blood T2*-weighted CMR against bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR for IMH characterization in clinical and preclinical settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Hemorrhagic MI patients (n = 20) and canines (n = 11) were imaged in the acute and chronic phases at 1.5 and 3 T with dark- and bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR. Imaging characteristics (Relative signal-to-noise (SNR), Relative contrast-to-noise (CNR), IMH Extent) and diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, area-under-the-curve, and inter-observer variability) of dark-blood T2*-weighted CMR for IMH characterization were assessed relative to bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR. RESULTS: At both clinical and preclinical settings, compared to bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR, dark-blood T2*-weighted images had significantly lower SNR, CNR and reduced IMH extent (all p < 0.05). Dark-blood T2*-weighted CMR also demonstrated weaker sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and inter-observer variability compared to bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR (all p < 0.05). These observations were consistent across infarct age and imaging field strengths. CONCLUSION: While IMH can be visible on dark-blood T2*-weighted CMR, the overall conspicuity of IMH is significantly reduced compared to that observed in bright-blood T2*-weighted images, across infarct age in clinical and preclinical settings at 1.5 and 3 T. Hence, bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR would be preferable for clinical use since dark-blood T2*-weighted CMR carries the potential to misclassify hemorrhagic MIs as non-hemorrhagic MIs.
BACKGROUND: Intramyocardial hemorrhage (IMH) within myocardial infarction (MI) is associated with major adverse cardiovascular events. Bright-blood T2*-based cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has emerged as the reference standard for non-invasive IMH detection. Despite this, the dark-blood T2*-based CMR is becoming interchangeably used with bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR in both clinical and preclinical settings for IMH detection. To date however, the relative merits of dark-blood T2*-weighted with respect to bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR for IMH characterization has not been studied. We investigated the diagnostic capacity of dark-blood T2*-weighted CMR against bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR for IMH characterization in clinical and preclinical settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Hemorrhagic MIpatients (n = 20) and canines (n = 11) were imaged in the acute and chronic phases at 1.5 and 3 T with dark- and bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR. Imaging characteristics (Relative signal-to-noise (SNR), Relative contrast-to-noise (CNR), IMH Extent) and diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, area-under-the-curve, and inter-observer variability) of dark-blood T2*-weighted CMR for IMH characterization were assessed relative to bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR. RESULTS: At both clinical and preclinical settings, compared to bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR, dark-blood T2*-weighted images had significantly lower SNR, CNR and reduced IMH extent (all p < 0.05). Dark-blood T2*-weighted CMR also demonstrated weaker sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and inter-observer variability compared to bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR (all p < 0.05). These observations were consistent across infarct age and imaging field strengths. CONCLUSION: While IMH can be visible on dark-blood T2*-weighted CMR, the overall conspicuity of IMH is significantly reduced compared to that observed in bright-blood T2*-weighted images, across infarct age in clinical and preclinical settings at 1.5 and 3 T. Hence, bright-blood T2*-weighted CMR would be preferable for clinical use since dark-blood T2*-weighted CMR carries the potential to misclassify hemorrhagic MIs as non-hemorrhagic MIs.
Authors: L J Anderson; S Holden; B Davis; E Prescott; C C Charrier; N H Bunce; D N Firmin; B Wonke; J Porter; J M Walker; D J Pennell Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Taigang He; Peter D Gatehouse; Paul Kirk; Mark A Tanner; Gillian C Smith; Jennifer Keegan; Raad H Mohiaddin; Dudley J Pennell; David N Firmin Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Andreas Kumar; Jordin D Green; Jane M Sykes; Pinhas Ephrat; Jeffrey J L Carson; Andrea J Mitchell; Gerald Wisenberg; Matthias G Friedrich Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-12
Authors: Ivan Cokic; Avinash Kali; Hsin-Jung Yang; Raymond Yee; Richard Tang; Mourad Tighiouart; Xunzhang Wang; Warren S Jackman; Sumeet S Chugh; James A White; Rohan Dharmakumar Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Avinash Kali; Andreas Kumar; Ivan Cokic; Richard L Q Tang; Sotirios A Tsaftaris; Matthias G Friedrich; Rohan Dharmakumar Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2013-02-12 Impact factor: 7.792
Authors: Alexander R Payne; Matthew Casey; John McClure; Ross McGeoch; Aengus Murphy; Rosemary Woodward; Andrew Saul; Xiaoming Bi; Sven Zuehlsdorff; Keith G Oldroyd; Niko Tzemos; Colin Berry Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 7.792