Is cardiac magnetic resonance necessary for prediction of left ventricular remodeling in patients with reperfused ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction?

As cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has become widely used for evaluation of myocardial viability after acute myocardial infarction, the additional value of CMR parameters for prediction of left ventricle (LV) remodeling has been receiving interest. The aim of the study was to investigate th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging Vol. 33; no. 12; pp. 2003 - 2012
Main Authors Kim, Eun Kyoung, Song, Young Bin, Chang, Sung-A, Park, Sung-Ji, Hahn, Joo-Yong, Choi, Seung Hyuk, Choi, Jin-Ho, Gwon, Hyeon-Cheol, Park, Seung-Woo, Choe, Yeon Hyeon, Ahn, Joonghyun, Carriere, Keumhee, Lee, Sang-Chol
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01.12.2017
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:As cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) has become widely used for evaluation of myocardial viability after acute myocardial infarction, the additional value of CMR parameters for prediction of left ventricle (LV) remodeling has been receiving interest. The aim of the study was to investigate the additional predictive value of CMR parameters for LV remodeling after successful reperfusion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) using multiple predictive models. LV remodeling was defined as ≥20% increase in end-diastolic volume at 6 month follow-up echocardiography. Using multiple stepwise regression analysis, conventional risk model was classified as following; model 1 (clinical factors), model 2 (model 1 + angiographic factors), model 3 (model 2 + echocardiographic factors) and CMR-added model; model 4 (model 3 + CMR factors). Among 262 enrolled patients, 25.1% showed LV remodeling. There were significant increments of c-statistics from the predictive model 1 to model 3 (AUC; 0.675 [0.60–0.75], 0.708 [0.64–0.78], 0.756 [0.69–0.82], respectively. all p < 0.05). However, model 4, which added the CMR variables, did not show any increase in predictive value compared with model 3 (AUC; 0.763 [0.70–0.83] versus 0.756 [0.69–0.82], p = 0.11). During the 28.2 months of median follow up, the incidence of hospitalization for heart failure was significantly higher in the patients with LV remodeling (6.1% vs. 0.5%, p = 0.02). CMR parameters did not provide incremental predictive value above the assessment by conventional echocardiography-based risk model in patients with STEMI.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1569-5794
1573-0743
1875-8312
DOI:10.1007/s10554-017-1206-z