Key result
Body surface potential mapping variables, particularly R width, strongly correlated with myocardial infarct size determined by DE-CMR (r = 0.64-0.71, P < 0.0001) at all stages of MI.
Why the study?
Does body surface potential mapping (BSPM) accurately assess myocardial infarct size compared to contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with myocardial infarction?
Observational (n=57)
Does body surface potential mapping (BSPM) accurately assess myocardial infarct size compared to contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in patients with myocardial infarction?
Effect estimate: r = 0.64-0.71
p-value: p=< 0.0001
Body surface potential mapping, particularly R-wave width, strongly correlates with CMR-defined myocardial infarct size across all stages of infarction.
Single-lead ECG variables estimate final MI size across phases; extends noninvasive ECG validation for infarct quantification in practice and trials.
BACKGROUND: Assessment of myocardial infarct (MI) size is important for therapeutic and prognostic reasons. We used body surface potential mapping (BSPM) to evaluate whether single-lead electrocardiographic variables can assess MI size. METHODS: We performed BSPM with 120 leads covering the front and back chest (plus limb leads) on 57 patients at different phases of MI: acutely, during healing, and in the chronic phase. Final MI size was determined by contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (DE-CMR) and correlated with various computed depolarization- and repolarization-phase BSPM variables. We also calculated correlations between BSPM variables and enzymatic MI size (peak CK-MBm). RESULTS: BSPM variables reflecting the Q- and R wave showed strong correlations with MI size at all stages of MI. R width performed the best, showing its strongest correlation with MI size on the upper right back, there representing the width of the "reciprocal Q wave" (r = 0.64-0.71 for DE-CMR, r = 0.57-0.64 for CK-MBm, P < 0.0001). Repolarization-phase variables showed only weak correlations with MI size in the acute phase, but these correlations improved during MI healing. T-wave variables and the QRSSTT integral showed their best correlations with DE-CMR defined MI size on the precordial area, at best r = -0.57, P < 0.0001 in the chronic phase. The best performing BSPM variables could differentiate between large and small infarcts at all stages of MI. CONCLUSIONS: Computed, single-lead electrocardiographic variables can estimate the final infarct size at all stages of MI, and differentiate large infarcts from small.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kylmälä et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Myocardial infarction (n=57). Body surface potential mapping (BSPM) vs. Contrast-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (DE-CMR) and peak CK-MBm was evaluated on Correlation between BSPM variables and final MI size (r = 0.64-0.71, p=< 0.0001). Body surface potential mapping variables, particularly R width, strongly correlated with myocardial infarct size determined by DE-CMR (r = 0.64-0.71, P < 0.0001) at all stages of MI.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: