Key result
Myocardial scar volume (16.8 vs 11.7 cm3) and scar percentage (10.2% vs 7.2%) measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance predicted future cardiovascular events in ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Why the study?
Does quantification of myocardial scar by cardiovascular magnetic resonance predict cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy?
Cohort (n=86)
No
Does quantification of myocardial scar by cardiovascular magnetic resonance predict cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy?
Mean Difference: 5.1
Absolute Event Rate: 16.8% vs 11.7%
p-value: p=0.023
Quantification of myocardial scar volume and percentage by CMR is superior to traditional metrics like LVEF and LV volumes for predicting future cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.
May refine risk stratification beyond LVEF in ischemic cardiomyopathy; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) can provide quantitative data of the myocardial tissue utilizing high spatial and temporal resolution along with exquisite tissue contrast. Previous studies have correlated myocardial scar tissue with the occurrence of ventricular arrhythmia. This study was conducted to evaluate whether characterization of myocardial infarction by CMR can predict cardiovascular events in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). RESULTS: We consecutively studied 86 patients with ICM (LVEF < 50%, mean LVEF: 26 +/- 12%) with CMR before revascularization or medication therapy +/- implantable cardiac defibrillator, determined the amount of myocardial scar, and followed for development of cardiovascular events. Thirty-three patients (38%) had cardiovascular events (mean follow-up: 20 +/- 16 months). Patients who developed cardiovascular events had larger scar volume and scar percentage of the myocardium than those who did not develop cardiovascular events (16.8 +/- 12.4 cm3 vs. 11.7 +/- 12.6 cm3, p = 0.023 and 10.2 +/- 6.9% vs. 7.2 +/- 6.7%, p = 0.037, respectively). There were no significant differences in LVEDV, LVESV and LVEF between the patients with and without cardiovascular events (231 +/- 76 ml vs. 230 +/- 88 ml; 180 +/- 73 ml vs. 175 +/- 90 ml; and 25 +/- 10% vs. 27 +/- 13%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Quantification of the scar volume and scar percentage by CMR is superior to LVEDV, LVESV, and LVEF in prognosticating the future likelihood of the development of cardiovascular events in patients with ICM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yokota et al. (2008) conducted a cohort in Ischemic cardiomyopathy (n=86). Myocardial scar volume and percentage by cardiovascular magnetic resonance vs. Lower scar volume/percentage was evaluated on Cardiovascular events (p=0.023). Myocardial scar volume (16.8 vs 11.7 cm3) and scar percentage (10.2% vs 7.2%) measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance predicted future cardiovascular events in ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: