Why the study?
Does late gadolinium-enhanced cardiovascular MRI at end-systole improve image quality compared to middiastole in patients with varying heart rates and rhythms?
Does late gadolinium-enhanced cardiovascular MRI at end-systole improve image quality compared to middiastole in patients with varying heart rates and rhythms?
End-systole late gadolinium-enhanced MRI provides comparable infarct size assessment to middiastole imaging and offers better image quality in patients with high heart rates or atrial fibrillation.
End-systole timing may improve LGE-CMR quality in high-HR sinus rhythm; leaves open optimal phase selection across rhythms and rates.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the image quality and infarct size of segmented late gadolinium-enhanced cardiovascular MRI at end-systole, compared with middiastole, in patients with sinus rhythm (SR) and to compare the image quality of end-systole images in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) to that of end-systole and middiastole images in patients with SR. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Study patients (n = 121) were distributed according to heart rate and rhythm: SR with low heart rate (≤ 65 beats/minute), SR with intermediate heart rate (66-75 beats/minute), SR with high heart rate (≥ 76 beats/minute), and AFib. Image quality was graded on a 5-point scale, where 4 equals optimal and 0 equals not assessable. Global infarct size (percentage of left ventricle [LV] myocardium) in patients with SR with myocardial infarction was quantified using a visual quantitative approach with a 5-point scale and a semiautomatic method. RESULTS: End-systole imaging had higher image quality than did middiastole imaging for patients with SR with high heart rate, whereas middiastole imaging had higher image quality than did end-systole imaging for patients with SR with low heart rate (p < 0.05 for patients with SR with low heart rate, p = 0.60 for patients with SR with intermediate heart rate, and p = 0.001 for patients with SR with high heart rate). The quality of end-systole imaging in patients with AFib was not significantly different from that in patients with SR (p = 0.40 vs SR middiastole imaging and p = 0.38 vs SR end-systole imaging). The average difference of global infarct size was -0.3% and 0.2% of LV myocardium, and the limits of agreement were ± 2.4% and ± 3.3% of LV myocardium, for visual assessment and semiautomatic assessment, respectively. CONCLUSION: End-systole imaging can provide accurate diagnosis of myocardial infarction, comparable to middiastole imaging. The image quality of end-systole imaging is less susceptible to heart rate and rhythm compared with middiastole imaging.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matsumoto et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: