Key result
Electromechanical mapping using unipolar voltage accurately detected scar tissue compared to cMRI, with AUC values ranging from 0.691 to 0.864 across different infarct territories.
Why the study?
Does electromechanical mapping accurately detect myocardial scar tissue compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in porcine myocardial infarction models?
Does electromechanical mapping accurately detect myocardial scar tissue compared to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in porcine myocardial infarction models?
Electromechanical mapping unipolar voltage values can accurately detect the presence and transmural extent of myocardial scar tissue in both reperfused and nonreperfused porcine infarction models.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports preclinical validation of electromechanical mapping for scar detection; human studies needed before clinical consideration.
The diagnostic characteristics of electromechanical mapping (EMM) were evaluated in porcine myocardial infarction (MI) models with the parallel application of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) from the aspect of different pathophysiology and localization. Balloon occlusion in the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD balloon group) or coil deployment in the LAD (LAD coil group) or circumflex artery (Cx coil group) was applied percutaneously in 16 domestic pigs. Regional left ventricular viability data were captured via cMRI and EMM. The unipolar voltage (UV) value was significantly decreased in segments containing transmural and subendocardial late enhancement compared with viable segments in the LAD balloon, LAD coil, and Cx coil groups. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed area under the curve values of 0.809 and 0.691 in the LAD infarct territory, and 0.864 and 0.855 in the Cx infarct territory for the UV compared with cMRI viability results as transmural late enhancement or viable tissue and subendocardial late enhancement or viable tissue, respectively. In conclusion, the UV value detected the presence of scar tissue with differential transmural extent and which represented proper diagnostic features both in the reperfused and nonreperfused models. This data could provide additional benefit in the clinical use of EMM for diagnostic purposes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lukács et al. (2013) studied Myocardial infarction (n=16). Electromechanical mapping (EMM) vs. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) was evaluated on Diagnostic accuracy (AUC) of unipolar voltage for detecting transmural and subendocardial late enhancement compared to cMRI (AUC 0.691-0.864). Electromechanical mapping using unipolar voltage accurately detected scar tissue compared to cMRI, with AUC values ranging from 0.691 to 0.864 across different infarct territories.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: