What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Observational. Population: ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (n=28). Intervention: Native T1-mapping vs. T2-mapping. Primary outcome: Area-at-risk (% of left ventricle) (ICC 0.986, 95% CI 0.969-0.993, p=0.72).

December 1, 2016Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceOpen Access

Native T1-mapping accurately delineated the edema-based area-at-risk compared to T2-mapping (41.6% vs 41.7% LV, P=0.72), and post-contrast T1-mapping accurately quantified acute MI size.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Does T1-mapping accurately quantify area-at-risk and infarct size compared to conventional T2-mapping and LGE in STEMI patients?

Population

28 STEMI patients without major cardiovascular risk factors, 3 ± 1 days following primary percutaneous…

Comparison

Native T1-mapping and post-contrast T1-mapping… vs Conventional T2-mapping and conventional LGE…

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

3 ± 1 days post-PCI

Key result

Native T1-mapping accurately delineated the edema-based area-at-risk compared to T2-mapping (41.6% vs 41.7% LV, P=0.72), and post-contrast T1-mapping accurately quantified acute MI size.

Authors

HBHeerajnarain Bulluck MHMatthew Hammond‐Haley MFMarianna Fontana

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

T1-mapping can accurately quantify both edema-based area-at-risk and acute infarct size in STEMI patients, potentially shortening CMR scan duration by 15-20 minutes.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=28)

Multicenter

Structured PICO

Does T1-mapping accurately quantify area-at-risk and infarct size compared to conventional T2-mapping and LGE in STEMI patients?

Population

28 STEMI patients without major cardiovascular risk factors, 3 ± 1 days following primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Intervention

Native T1-mapping and post-contrast T1-mapping with synthetic late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) images at 1.5 T

Comparator

Conventional T2-mapping and conventional LGE imaging

Outcome

Correlation and agreement of area-at-risk and myocardial infarct size quantificationsurrogate

Main Result

Effect estimate: ICC 0.986 (95% CI 0.969-0.993)

Absolute Event Rate: 41.6% vs 41.7%

p-value: p=0.72

T1-mapping can accurately quantify both edema-based area-at-risk and acute infarct size in STEMI patients, potentially shortening CMR scan duration by 15-20 minutes.

Limitations

Small sample size of 28 patients
Conventional LGE and post-contrast T1 maps were acquired 5 minutes apart
Edema was used as a surrogate marker for the area-at-risk
Two different LGE read-outs were used for MI size quantification
Only about a third of the cohort had conventional cardiovascular risk factors

Cite This Study

Bulluck et al. (2016) conducted an observational in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (n=28). Native T1-mapping vs. T2-mapping was evaluated on Area-at-risk (% of left ventricle) (ICC 0.986, 95% CI 0.969-0.993, p=0.72). Native T1-mapping accurately delineated the edema-based area-at-risk compared to T2-mapping (41.6% vs 41.7% LV, P=0.72), and post-contrast T1-mapping accurately quantified acute MI size.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a121bb745487b7639a5e5bb https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-017-0370-6

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

December 1, 2016Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic ResonanceOpen Access

Native T1-mapping accurately delineated the edema-based area-at-risk compared to T2-mapping (41.6% vs 41.7% LV, P=0.72), and post-contrast T1-mapping accurately quantified acute MI size.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Why the study?

Does T1-mapping accurately quantify area-at-risk and infarct size compared to conventional T2-mapping and LGE in STEMI patients?

Population

28 STEMI patients without major cardiovascular risk factors, 3 ± 1 days following primary percutaneous…

Comparison

Native T1-mapping and post-contrast T1-mapping… vs Conventional T2-mapping and conventional LGE…

Design

Cohort

Follow-up

3 ± 1 days post-PCI

Key result

Native T1-mapping accurately delineated the edema-based area-at-risk compared to T2-mapping (41.6% vs 41.7% LV, P=0.72), and post-contrast T1-mapping accurately quantified acute MI size.

Authors

HBHeerajnarain Bulluck MHMatthew Hammond‐Haley MFMarianna Fontana

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

T1-mapping can accurately quantify both edema-based area-at-risk and acute infarct size in STEMI patients, potentially shortening CMR scan duration by 15-20 minutes.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=28)

Multicenter

Structured PICO

Does T1-mapping accurately quantify area-at-risk and infarct size compared to conventional T2-mapping and LGE in STEMI patients?

Population

28 STEMI patients without major cardiovascular risk factors, 3 ± 1 days following primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Intervention

Native T1-mapping and post-contrast T1-mapping with synthetic late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) images at 1.5 T

Comparator

Conventional T2-mapping and conventional LGE imaging

Outcome

Correlation and agreement of area-at-risk and myocardial infarct size quantificationsurrogate

Main Result

Effect estimate: ICC 0.986 (95% CI 0.969-0.993)

Absolute Event Rate: 41.6% vs 41.7%

p-value: p=0.72

T1-mapping can accurately quantify both edema-based area-at-risk and acute infarct size in STEMI patients, potentially shortening CMR scan duration by 15-20 minutes.

Limitations

Small sample size of 28 patients
Conventional LGE and post-contrast T1 maps were acquired 5 minutes apart
Edema was used as a surrogate marker for the area-at-risk
Two different LGE read-outs were used for MI size quantification
Only about a third of the cohort had conventional cardiovascular risk factors

Cite This Study

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a121bb745487b7639a5e5bb https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-017-0370-6

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark