Ejection Fraction by Echocardiography for a Selective Use of Magnetic Resonance After Infarction

Víctor Marcos‐Garcés; José Gavara; María P. López‐Lereu; José V. Monmeneu; César Ríos‐Navarro; Elena de Dios; N Pérez; Joaquim Cànoves; Jessika González; Gema Miñana; Julio Núñez; Rafael de la Espriella; Enrique Santas; David Moratal; Francisco J. Chorro; Filipa Valente; Daniel Lorenzatti; José F. Rodríguez‐Palomares; Jose T. Ortiz‐Pérez; Vicente Bodı́

doi:10.1161/circimaging.120.011491

Why the study?

CMR enables robust risk stratification after STEMI, but indiscriminate use in all patients is not feasible.

Does CMR-LVEF improve prediction of MACE compared to echocardiography-LVEF in patients discharged after STEMI?

Structured PICO

Does CMR-LVEF improve prediction of MACE compared to echocardiography-LVEF in patients discharged after STEMI?

P

Population

1119 patients discharged for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) included in a multicenter registry

I

Intervention

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessed by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)

C

Comparator

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessed by echocardiography

O

Outcome

First major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as cardiovascular death and readmission for acute heart failurecomposite

A selective strategy using CMR for risk prediction only in STEMI patients with echocardiography-LVEF <50% significantly improves MACE prediction compared to echocardiography alone.

Implication

CMR-LVEF may refine MACE prediction in post-STEMI patients with echocardiography-LVEF <50%; leaves open whether selective use improves outcomes.

Abstract

Background Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) permits robust risk stratification of discharged ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients, but its indiscriminate use in all cases is not feasible. We evaluated the utility of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography for a selective use of CMR after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Methods Echocardiography and CMR were performed in 1119 patients discharged for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction included in a multicenter registry. The prognostic power of CMR beyond echocardiography-LVEF was assessed using adjusted C statistic, net reclassification improvement index, and integrated discrimination improvement index. Results During a 4.8-year median follow-up, 136 (12%) first major adverse cardiac events (MACE) occurred (47 cardiovascular deaths and 89 readmissions for acute heart failure). In the entire group, CMR-LVEF (but not echocardiography-LVEF) independently predicted MACE occurrence. The MACE rate significantly increased only in patients with CMR-LVEF<40% (≥50%: 7%, 40%-49%: 9%, <40%: 27%, P<0.001). Most patients displayed echocardiography-LVEF≥50% (629, 56%), and they had a low MACE rate (57/629, 9%). In patients with echocardiography-LVEF<50% (n=490, 44%), the MACE rate was also low in those with CMR-LVEF≥40% (24/278, 9%) but significantly increased in patients with CMR-LVEF<40% (55/212, 26%; P<0.001). Compared with echocardiography-LVEF, CMR-LVEF significantly improved MACE prediction in the group of patients with echocardiography-LVEF<50% (C statistic, 0.80 versus 0.72; net reclassification improvement index, 0.73; integrated discrimination improvement index, 0.10) but not in those with echocardiography-LVEF≥50% (C statistic 0.66 versus 0.66; net reclassification improvement index, 0.17; integrated discrimination improvement index, 0.01). Conclusions A straightforward strategy based on a selective use of CMR for risk prediction in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients with echocardiography-LVEF<50% can provide insights into patient care. The cost-effectiveness of this approach, as well as the direct implications in clinical management, should be further explored.