CE-SSFP yielded a higher proportion of diagnostic quality images than T2-STIR (97% vs 65%) for determining myocardium at risk in STEMI patients, while both provided similar MaR estimates.
Observational (n=223)
Yes
Does CE-SSFP provide better diagnostic quality and similar estimation of myocardium at risk compared to T2-STIR in patients with STEMI?
CE-SSFP provides a higher rate of diagnostic quality images than T2-STIR for assessing myocardium at risk in STEMI patients, making it more suitable for multicenter clinical trials.
Absolute Event Rate: 97% vs 65%
AIMS: Myocardial salvage, determined by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR), is used as end point in cardioprotection trials. To calculate myocardial salvage, infarct size is related to myocardium at risk (MaR), which can be assessed by T2-short tau inversion recovery (T2-STIR) and contrast-enhanced steady-state free precession magnetic resonance imaging (CE-SSFP). We aimed to determine how T2-STIR and CE-SSFP perform in determining MaR when applied in multicentre, multi-vendor settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 215 patients from 17 centres were included after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. CMR was performed within 1-8 days. These patients participated in the MITOCARE or CHILL-MI cardioprotection trials. Additionally, 8 patients from a previous study, imaged 1 day post-CMR, were included. Late gadolinium enhancement, T2-STIR, and CE-SSFP images were acquired on 1.5T MR scanners (Philips, Siemens, or GE). In 65% of the patients, T2-STIR was of diagnostic quality compared with 97% for CE-SSFP. In diagnostic quality images, there was no difference in MaR by T2-STIR and CE-SSFP (bias: 0.02 ± 6%, P = 0.96, r(2) = 0.71, P < 0.001), or between treatment and control arms. No change in size or quality of MaR nor ability to identify culprit artery was seen over the first week after the acute event (P = 0.44). CONCLUSION: In diagnostic quality images, T2-STIR and CE-SSFP provide similar estimates of MaR, were constant over the first week, and were not affected by treatment. CE-SSFP had a higher degree of diagnostic quality images compared with T2 imaging for sequences from two out of three vendors. Therefore, CE-SSFP is currently more suitable for implementation in multicentre, multi-vendor clinical trials.
Nordlund et al. (2016) conducted an observational in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (n=223). CE-SSFP vs. T2-STIR was evaluated on Diagnostic quality of images. CE-SSFP yielded a higher proportion of diagnostic quality images than T2-STIR (97% vs 65%) for determining myocardium at risk in STEMI patients, while both provided similar MaR estimates.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: