Why the study?
Does endocardial motion or wall thickening better depict the severity of regional contraction abnormality after anterior myocardial infarction?
Does endocardial motion or wall thickening better depict the severity of regional contraction abnormality after anterior myocardial infarction?
Endocardial motion is affected to a greater degree by myocardial infarction than wall thickening, making it a more discriminant index for assessing post-infarction patients using cine-MRI.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Endocardial motion may better depict post-MI contraction abnormalities than wall thickening on cine-MRI; leaves open effects on risk stratification or outcomes.
In this study, two patterns of regional contract on of the left ventricle have been studied: endocardial motion and wall thickening, in order to check which of these was the most affected after myocardial infarction. The clinical relevance of this comparison was to assess which parameter of the regional contraction abnormality would best depict the severity of the infarction. Long axis cine-magnetic resonance slices were used to assess segmental systolic left ventricular endocardial motion and segmental systolic wall thickening in 39 normal subjects and in 30 patients at the chronic stage of an anterior myocardial infarction. In the group of normal subjects, endocardial motion and wall thickening showed significant regional heterogeneity. Overall endocardial motion was greater than overall wall thickening: 9.5 +/- 2.0 mm vs 7.1 +/- 1.8 mm. P = 4 x 10(-12) (3.1 +/- 1.2 mm vs 2.0 +/- 0.7 mm, P = 9 x 10(-5) after infarction). A significant linear correlation was found between these two parameters. In the infarction group, abnormality scores for endocardial motion and for wall thickening were calculated. These scores were defined as the average values exceeding the mean minus two standard deviations of the normal range for segments corresponding to the antero-septal-apical walls. The abnormality score for endocardial motion greater than the abnormality score for wall thickening: 0.31 +/- 0.12 vs 0.20 +/- 0.07, P = 9 x 10(-4). We conclude that, in clinical practice, endocardial motion is affected to a greater degree by myocardial infarction than is wall thickening and therefore constitutes a more discriminant index in the assessment of post-infarction patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Germain et al. (1996) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: