NEW ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Reduced fees for SCMR membership - click here for more information.


SCMR-LAC Multicenter Registry is enrolling!

Contact us at jlaraf@fcm.unicamp.br to participate - Download the Instructional Manual here

SCMR-LAC on Twitter - follow us: http://twitter.com/scmrlac


Feb 28, 2010

Quantitative versus Qualitative Analysis in CMR

The very practical and fast qualitative analysis used by most physicians in CMR does the job in the clinical scenario:

Head to head comparison of quantitative versus visual analysis of contrast CMR in the setting of myocardial stunning after STEMI: implications on late systolic function and patient outcome.


Husser O, Bodi V, Sanchis J, Nunez J, Mainar L, Merlos P, Lopez-Lereu MP, Monmeneu JV, Chaustre F, Rumiz E, Riegger GA, Chorro FJ, Llacer A.

Department of Cardiology, Hospital Clinico Universitario, INCLIVA, Universidad de Valencia, Blasco Ibanez 17, 46010, Valencia, Spain.

To compare a quantitative assessment of contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with visual analysis for predicting depressed ejection fraction (dEF) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). 192 patients underwent CMR at 1 week and 6 months after STEMI. Three quantitative (initial slope, maximal signal intensity and contrast delay in first-pass imaging) and 2 visual perfusion indexes (hypoenhancement in first-pass and microvascular obstruction in late enhancement imaging (LE)) were determined. Quantification of infarct mass and visual assessment of the extent of transmural necrosis (ETN) were also performed. At 6 months, 69 patients displayed dEF. During follow-up (mean 655 days) 20 MACE (death, re-infarction, re-admission for heart failure) occurred. Perfusion quantification took longer (P < 0.001) and, in ROC curve analyses and the C-statistic, was not superior to visual perfusion analysis for predicting late EF or MACE (P = ns). Similarly, infarct size quantification was not superior to visual assessment of ETN (P = ns). In multivariate analyses, only visual assessment of ETN (per segment) predicted dEF (OR 1.30 95%CI [1.04-1.61], P = 0.02) and MACE (HR 1.38 95%CI [1.19-1.60], P < 0.001). Visual analysis of CMR after STEMI is not time consuming and predicts dEF and MACE comparable to quantification. ETN was the strongest parameter.

No comments:

Post a Comment