Why the study?
Do cardiovascular magnetic resonance methods assess the area at risk more accurately than angiographic or electrocardiographic methods in patients with reperfused ST elevation myocardial infarction?
Observational (n=78)
Do cardiovascular magnetic resonance methods assess the area at risk more accurately than angiographic or electrocardiographic methods in patients with reperfused ST elevation myocardial infarction?
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance methods, particularly delayed enhanced endocardial surface area (ESA), are superior to angiographic and electrocardiographic methods for measuring the area at risk in acute myocardial infarction.
CMR-ESA may more accurately measure area at risk than angiographic or ECG methods in reperfused STEMI; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Versteylen et al. (2011) conducted an observational in ST elevation myocardial infarction (n=78). Cardiovascular magnetic resonance methods (T2-weighted hyperintensity and ESA) vs. Electrocardiographic (Aldrich) and angiographic (BARI, APPROACH) methods was evaluated on Agreement between area at risk (AAR) size and infarct size (IS) (r=0.93, p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: