Why the study?
What are the strengths, weaknesses, choice, and timing of different non-invasive cardiac imaging techniques after myocardial infarction?
What are the strengths, weaknesses, choice, and timing of different non-invasive cardiac imaging techniques after myocardial infarction?
This review summarizes the role, choice, and timing of non-invasive cardiac imaging techniques in the clinical management of patients following a myocardial infarction.
Guides post-MI imaging selection and timing; leaves open optimal protocols pending prospective validation.
After myocardial infarction, optimal clinical management depends critically on cardiac imaging. Remodelling and heart failure, presence of inducible ischaemia, presence of dysfunctional viable myocardium, future risk of adverse events including risk of ventricular arrhythmias, need for anticoagulation, and other questions should be addressed by cardiac imaging. Strengths and weaknesses, recent developments, choice, and timing of the different non-invasive techniques are reviewed for this frequent clinical scenario.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Flachskampf et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: