Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcentrum Twente, MST, Haaksbergerstraat 55, 7513 ER, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Jan;29(1):169-76. doi: 10.1007/s10554-012-0077-6. Epub 2012 Jun 9.
Knowledge about potential differences in infarct tissue characteristics between patients with prior life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia versus patients receiving prophylactic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) might help to improve the current risk stratification in myocardial infarction (MI) patients who are considered for ICD implantation. In a consecutive series of (ICD) recipients for primary and secondary prevention following MI, we used contrast-enhanced (CE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging to evaluate differences in infarct tissue characteristics. Cine-CMR measurements included left ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes (EDV, ESV), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), wall motion score index (WMSI), and mass. CE-CMR images were analyzed for core, peri, and total infarct size, infarct localization (according to coronary artery territory), and transmural extent. In this study, 95 ICD recipients were included. In the primary prevention group (n = 66), LVEF was lower (23 ± 9% vs. 31 ± 14%; P < 0.01), ESV and WMSI were higher (223 ± 75 ml vs. 184 ± 97 ml, P = 0.04, and 1.89 ± 0.52 vs. 1.47 ± 0.68; P < 0.01), and anterior infarct localization was more frequent (P = 0.02) than in the secondary prevention group (n = 29). There were no differences in infarct tissue characteristics between patients treated for primary versus secondary prevention (P > 0.6 for all). During 21 ± 9 months of follow-up, 3 (5%) patients in the primary prevention group and 9 (31%) in the secondary prevention group experienced appropriate ICD therapy for treatment of ventricular arrhythmia (P < 0.01). There was no difference in infarct tissue characteristics between recipients of ICD for primary versus secondary prevention, while the secondary prevention group showed a higher frequency of applied ICD therapy for ventricular arrhythmia.
关于先前发生危及生命的室性心律失常的患者与接受预防性植入式心脏复律除颤器 (ICD) 的患者之间梗死组织特征的潜在差异的知识可能有助于改善目前考虑植入 ICD 的心肌梗死 (MI) 患者的风险分层。在 MI 后接受一级和二级预防的连续 ICD 接受者系列中,我们使用对比增强 (CE) 心血管磁共振 (CMR) 成像来评估梗死组织特征的差异。电影 CMR 测量包括左心室舒张末期和收缩末期容积 (EDV、ESV)、左心室射血分数 (LVEF)、壁运动评分指数 (WMSI) 和质量。CE-CMR 图像用于分析核心、周边和总梗死大小、梗死定位(根据冠状动脉区域)和透壁程度。在这项研究中,纳入了 95 名 ICD 接受者。在一级预防组(n = 66)中,LVEF 较低(23 ± 9% vs. 31 ± 14%;P < 0.01),ESV 和 WMSI 较高(223 ± 75 ml vs. 184 ± 97 ml,P = 0.04 和 1.89 ± 0.52 vs. 1.47 ± 0.68;P < 0.01),且前壁梗死定位更为常见(P = 0.02)比二级预防组(n = 29)。在一级预防和二级预防之间,患者的梗死组织特征无差异(所有 P > 0.6)。在 21 ± 9 个月的随访期间,一级预防组中有 3 名(5%)患者和二级预防组中有 9 名(31%)患者因室性心律失常接受了适当的 ICD 治疗(P < 0.01)。一级预防和二级预防的 ICD 接受者之间的梗死组织特征没有差异,而二级预防组因室性心律失常接受 ICD 治疗的频率更高。