A novel method for cardiac vector velocity measurement: Evaluation in myocardial infarction

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 58-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Daniel Cruces ◽  
Pedro David Arini
Author(s):  
L.N. Bohs ◽  
B.J. Geiman ◽  
K.R. Nightingale ◽  
C.D. Choi ◽  
B.H. Friemel ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob Ref ◽  
Sherry Daugherty ◽  
Ikeotunye Royal Chinyere ◽  
Janan Zeng ◽  
Jordan J Lancaster ◽  
...  

Abstract PurposeCurrently, the American Heart Association (AHA) 17-segment model is the preferred clinical method to define and quantify left ventricle (LV) myocardial infarction (MI) size. This method is subjective and can be inaccurate given that segmental approximation assumes a specific percent of infarcted tissue when compared to reference standard post-mortem histopathology. To improve the accuracy and reproducibility of infarct volume quantification we propose a novel measurement technique based on cardiac MRI images from a porcine model of myocardial infarction. Data were collected from serial MRI exams of Yucatan mini swine over 6 months and endpoint organ harvesting for histopathologic analysis. MethodsTwo observers evaluated four infarct sizing methods: myocardial contouring of post-mortem heart slices, contouring using cardiac MRI, AHA 17-segment model analysis and novel long-axis MRI infarct sizing. ResultsLV infarct sizes ranges were 1.6% - 25.8% (n=10) using reference standard histopathologic infarct sizing. Intraclass correlations (ICC) were calculated between two observers and averaged due to high similarity, ICC > .900. A t-test of .0006 and Bland-Altman plots show statistically significant differences in 17-segment model infarct size compared to histopathologic analysis while no significant difference was found when compared to our new novel method with 0.8198. Linear correlation showed an R 2 of 0.9111 between MRI contoured infarct size and our novel MRI infarct sizing model to predict infarct size as a percentage while the R 2 of the 17-Seg model is 0.8197. ConclusionsThe 17-sgement model provides an inferior quantitative assessment of LV infarct size compared to the proposed long-axis infarct sizing suggesting it maybe a robust and easily implementable quantitative assessment of LV infarct size in advanced imaging.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (19) ◽  
pp. 4535
Author(s):  
Rosalia Dettori ◽  
Michael Frick ◽  
Kathrin Burgmaier ◽  
Richard Karl Lubberich ◽  
Martin Hellmich ◽  
...  

Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a novel method to assess the relevance of coronary stenoses based only on angiographic projections. We could previously show that QFR is able to predict the hemodynamic relevance of non-culprit lesions in patients with myocardial infarction. However, it is still unclear whether QFR is also associated with the extent and severity of ischemia, which can effectively be assessed with imaging modalities such as cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR). Thus, our aim was to evaluate the associations of QFR with both extent and severity of ischemia. We retrospectively determined QFR in 182 non-culprit coronary lesions from 145 patients with previous myocardial infarction, and compared it with parameters assessing extent and severity of myocardial ischemia in staged CMR. Whereas ischemic burden in lesions with QFR > 0.80 was low (1.3 ± 5.5% in lesions with QFR ≥ 0.90; 1.8 ± 7.3% in lesions with QFR 0.81–0.89), there was a significant increase in ischemic burden in lesions with QFR ≤ 0.80 (16.6 ± 15.6%; p < 0.001 for QFR ≥ 0.90 vs. QFR ≤ 0.80). These data could be confirmed by other parameters assessing extent of ischemia. In addition, QFR was also associated with severity of ischemia, assessed by the relative signal intensity of ischemic areas. Finally, QFR predicts a clinically relevant ischemic burden ≥ 10% with good diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.779, 95%-CI: 0.666–0.892, p < 0.001). QFR may be a feasible tool to identify not only the presence, but also extent and severity of myocardial ischemia in non-culprit lesions of patients with myocardial infarction.


2011 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 935-941 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan F. Wenk ◽  
Parastou Eslami ◽  
Zhihong Zhang ◽  
Chun Xu ◽  
Ellen Kuhl ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document