Loading…

Myocardial area at risk and salvage measured by T2-weighted cardiovascular magnetic resonance: reproducibility and comparison of two T2-weighted protocols

Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and T2-weighted cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) provides a means to measure myocardial area at risk (AAR) and salvage. Several T2-weighted CMR sequences are in use, but there is no consensus in terms of which sequence to be the preferred. Therefore, the aim...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance 2011-09, Vol.13 (1), p.50-50, Article 50
Main Authors: Lønborg, Jacob, Vejlstrup, Niels, Mathiasen, Anders B, Thomsen, Carsten, Jensen, Jan S, Engstrøm, Thomas
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) and T2-weighted cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) provides a means to measure myocardial area at risk (AAR) and salvage. Several T2-weighted CMR sequences are in use, but there is no consensus in terms of which sequence to be the preferred. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to: (1) Assess the reproducibility and (2) compare the two most frequently used T2-weighted CMR protocols for measuring AAR and salvage. 91 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention underwent a CMR scan 1-7 days after initial treatment. Two different T2-weighted protocols, varying in slice thickness and echo time (TE), were applied covering the entire left ventricle (LV) (protocol 1: TE 65 msec and slice thickness 15 mm; protocol 2: TE 100 msec and slice thickness of 8 mm). On a second scan performed 3 months later, infarct size was assessed with a standard LGE sequence. The two protocols were compared in terms of AAR and salvage index. Furthermore, intra- and interobserver reproducibility were assessed. Protocol 1 measures a larger AAR and salvage index than protocol 2 with a mean difference in AAR of 1±8%LV (p
ISSN:1097-6647
1532-429X
1532-429X
DOI:10.1186/1532-429X-13-50