Role of Gated Myocardial Glucose Metabolic Imaging in Assessing Left Ventricular Systolic Dyssynchrony after Myocardial Infarction and the Influential Factors

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. Bull’s eye plots and phase histograms obtained from GMMI and GMPI phase analysis. (A) GMMI phase analysis of a normal pig. (B) GMPI phase analysis of the same normal pig. (A,B) show a uniform color-scale distribution in the bull’s eye plot and a narrow and sharp peak with two sides being symmetrical in the phase histogram. (C) GMMI phase analysis of a pig with MI. (D) GMPI phase analysis of the same pig with MI. (C,D) show an inhomogeneous color-scale distribution in the bull’s eye plot and an evidently widened and asymmetrical peak in the phase histogram.

• 

  Figure 2. Comparison in phase analysis between GMMI and GMPI methods for pigs in the normal group. (A) Phase BW obtained from GMMI, showing no difference from that obtained from GMPI (P > 0.05). (B) Bland-Altman analysis, showing good consistency in BW obtained using the two methods. Note: there are 9 data points, but some data are completely overlapped, making it look like 5 plots. (C) Phase SD obtained from GMMI, showing no differences from that obtained from GMPI (P > 0.05). (D) Bland-Altman analysis, showing good consistency in SD obtained using the two methods.

• 

  Figure 3. Pathological and histopathological images of left ventricle of pigs in MI group after HE and Masson staining. (A) Infarcted myocardium appears in white while normal myocardium appears in red in TTC stained slides. (B,E) HE and Masson staining of infarcted segment, showing full of necrotic myocardium, obvious of myocardium fibrosis, and few viable myocardium. (C,F) HE and Masson staining of infarct margin segment, showing coexistence of necrotic and viable myocardium. (D,G) HE and Masson staining of normal myocardium.

• 

  Figure 4. Comparison in phase analysis between GMMI and GMPI methods for pigs in the MI group. (A) Phase BW obtained from GMMI, showing no differences from that obtained from GMPI (P > 0.05). (B) Pearson linear correlation analysis, showing a significant and positive correlation between GMMI and GMPI for BW (rBW = 0.74, P < 0.05). (C) Bland-Altman analysis, showing good consistency in BW obtained using the two methods. (D) Phase SD obtained from GMMI, showing no difference from that obtained from GMPI (P > 0.05). (E) Pearson linear correlation analysis, showing a significant and positive correlation between GMMI and GMPI for SD (rSD = 0.84, P < 0.05); (F) Bland-Altman analysis, showing good consistency in SD obtained using the two methods.