4.7 Article

Gadolinium delayed enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance correlates with clinical measures of myocardial infarction

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 43, 期 12, 页码 2253-2259

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.02.046

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES The current study tested the hypothesis that gadolinium delayed enhancement assessment of infarct size correlates with clinical indices of myocardial infarction (MI) in humans. Acute infarct mass by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) was compared with peak troponin 1, acute and chronic left ventricular (LV) systolic function, and chronic infarct mass in patients imaged after recent acute MI. BACKGROUND Cardiac magnetic resonance accurately determines myocardial viability in patients with chronic ischemic heart disease but is not well validated for recent MI. METHODS Patients with first acute MI (n = 33) or chronic MI (n = 10) underwent cine CMR followed by gadolinium delayed enhancement imaging. A follow-up CMR scan was performed on 20 of the 33 acute MI patients and all of the chronic MI patients. RESULTS In patients with acute percutaneous coronary intervention, acute MI mass correlated with peak troponin I (r = 0.83, p < 0.001, n = 23). In the 20 acute infarct patients with follow-up CMR scans, the acute infarct size correlated well with the follow-up LV ejection fraction (r = 0.86, p < 0.001). The transmural extent of delayed enhancement imaged acutely correlated inversely with wall thickening measured acutely (p < 0.001) and at follow-up (p < 0.001). Although chronic infarct size was reproducible (11 +/- 4% vs. 12 +/- 7%, p = NS), acute infarct size decreased from 16 +/- 12% to 11 +/- 9% (p < 0.003). CONCLUSION In humans imaged shortly after acute MI, gadolinium delayed enhancement acute CMR infarct size correlates with acute and chronic indices of infarct size but will appear to diminish in size on follow-up. (C) 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据