Key result
Percent-infarct-mapping (PIM) was more accurate than delayed enhancement for quantifying myocardial infarct size, overestimating infarction fraction by only 1.0% compared to 29% by DE.
Why the study?
Does percent-infarct-mapping (PIM) improve the accuracy of myocardial infarct size assessment compared to conventional delayed enhancement in a canine model of reperfused infarction?
Does percent-infarct-mapping (PIM) improve the accuracy of myocardial infarct size assessment compared to conventional delayed enhancement in a canine model of reperfused infarction?
p-value: p=<0.01
The DeltaR1-based percent-infarct-mapping method is more accurate than conventional delayed enhancement for quantifying myocardial viability in vivo in a canine model.
PIM may improve infarct quantification accuracy in reperfused canine models; hypothesis-generating for clinical translation.
PURPOSE: To compare a novel method, percent-infarct-mapping (PIM), with conventional delayed enhancement (DE) of contrast for accurate myocardial viability assessment. Contrary to signal intensity (SI), the longitudinal relaxation-rate enhancement (DeltaR1) is an intrinsic parameter linearly proportional to the concentration of contrast agent (CA). Determining DeltaR1 voxel-by-voxel, after administering an infarct-avid CA, allows determination of per-voxel percentage of infarcted tissue. The feasibility of generating PIM is demonstrated in canine reperfused infarction using an infarct-avid, persistent-CA (PCA), (Gd)(ABE-DTTA). PIM is compared to the DE method using Gd(DTPA), and both to triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC) staining histochemistry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In six dogs, 48 hours following closed-chest, 180-minute coronary occlusion, DE imaging was carried out. PCA was administered immediately thereafter. Pixel-by-pixel R1 maps of the entire left ventricle (LV) were generated 48 hours after PCA using inversion-recovery with multiple inversion times. R1, DeltaR1, and percent-infarct values were calculated voxel-by-voxel. RESULTS: Significant correlations (P < 0.01, R >or= 0.8) were obtained for percent-infarct-per-slice (PIS) determined by DE or PIM vs. those from corresponding TTC-stained slices. Compared to TTC, DE overestimated PIS by 32 +/- 18%. PIM underestimated PIS by 2.5 +/- 4.9%. Infarction fraction overestimation was 29 +/- 6% of LV by DE, but only 1.0 +/- 2.3% by PIM. Errors with PIM were significantly smaller than those with DE. Infarct area determined by signal intensity was similarly overestimated whether using Gd(DTPA) or Gd(ABE-DTTA). CONCLUSION: The DeltaR1-based PIM method is highly reproducible and more accurate than DE for quantifying myocardial viability in vivo.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruzsics et al. (2008) studied Myocardial infarction (n=6). Percent-infarct-mapping (PIM) using (Gd)(ABE-DTTA) vs. Conventional delayed enhancement (DE) using Gd(DTPA) was evaluated on Accuracy of percent-infarct-per-slice (PIS) and infarction fraction compared to TTC staining (p=<0.01). Percent-infarct-mapping (PIM) was more accurate than delayed enhancement for quantifying myocardial infarct size, overestimating infarction fraction by only 1.0% compared to 29% by DE.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: