Myocardial area at risk after ST-elevation myocardial infarction measured with the late gadolinium enhancement after scar remodeling and T2-weighted cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

To evaluate the myocardial area at risk (AAR) measured by the endocardial surface area (ESA) method on late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) when applied after scar remodeling (3 months after index infarction) compared to T2-weighted CMR imaging. One hundred and s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging 2012-08, Vol.28 (6), p.1455-1464
Main Authors: Lønborg, Jacob, Engstrøm, Thomas, Mathiasen, Anders B., Vejlstrup, Niels
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aged
Cardiac Imaging
Cardiology
Cicatrix
Contrast Media
Humans
Imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Myocardial Infarction - diagnosis
Myocardial Infarction - pathology
Myocardial Infarction - physiopathology
Myocardial Infarction - therapy
Myocardium - pathology
Organometallic Compounds
Original Paper
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Predictive Value of Tests
Radiology
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Stroke Volume
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Ventricular Function, Left
Ventricular Remodeling
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:To evaluate the myocardial area at risk (AAR) measured by the endocardial surface area (ESA) method on late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) when applied after scar remodeling (3 months after index infarction) compared to T2-weighted CMR imaging. One hundred and sixty nine patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, underwent one CMR within 1 week after index treatment to determine the AAR with T2-weighted imaging and a second scan 3 months after to measure AAR with the ESA method. There was a moderate correlation between the two methods (r = 0.86; P  
ISSN:1569-5794
1573-0743
1875-8312
DOI:10.1007/s10554-011-9952-9