Hamshere Stephen, Jones Daniel A, Pellaton Cyril, Longchamp Danielle, Burchell Tom, Mohiddin Saidi, Moon James C, Kastrup Jens, Locca Didier, Petersen Steffen E, Westwood Mark, Mathur Anthony
Department of Cardiology, Barts Heart Centre, St Bartholomews Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, EC1A 7BE, UK.
William Harvey Research Institute, NIHR Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit at Barts, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2016 Jan 23;18:7. doi: 10.1186/s12968-016-0226-5.
AAR measurement is useful when assessing the efficacy of reperfusion therapy and novel cardioprotective agents after myocardial infarction. Multi-slice (Typically 10-12) T2-STIR has been used widely for its measurement, typically with a short axis stack (SAX) covering the entire left ventricle, which can result in long acquisition times and multiple breath holds. This study sought to compare 3-slice T2-short-tau inversion recovery (T2- STIR) technique against conventional multi-slice T2-STIR technique for the assessment of area at risk (AAR).
CMR imaging was performed on 167 patients after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention. 82 patients underwent a novel 3-slice SAX protocol and 85 patients underwent standard 10-slice SAX protocol. AAR was obtained by manual endocardial and epicardial contour mapping followed by a semi- automated selection of normal myocardium; the volume was expressed as mass (%) by two independent observers.
85 patients underwent both 10-slice and 3-slice imaging assessment showing a significant and strong correlation (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.92;p < 0.0001) and a low Bland-Altman limit (mean difference -0.03 ± 3.21%, 95% limit of agreement,- 6.3 to 6.3) between the 2 analysis techniques. A further 82 patients underwent 3-slice imaging alone, both the 3-slice and the 10-slice techniques showed statistically significant correlations with angiographic risk scores (3-slice to BARI r = 0.36, 3-slice to APPROACH r = 0.42, 10-slice to BARI r = 0.27, 10-slice to APPROACH r = 0.46). There was low inter-observer variability demonstrated in the 3-slice technique, which was comparable to the 10-slice method (z = 1.035, p = 0.15). Acquisition and analysis times were quicker in the 3-slice compared to the 10-slice method (3-slice median time: 100 seconds (IQR: 65-171 s) vs. (10-slice time: 355 seconds (IQR: 275-603 s); p < 0.0001.
AAR measured using 3-slice T2-STIR technique correlates well with standard 10-slice techniques, with no significant bias demonstrated in assessing the AAR. The 3-slice technique requires less time to perform and analyse and is therefore advantageous for both patients and clinicians.
在评估心肌梗死后再灌注治疗和新型心脏保护药物的疗效时,梗死面积(AAR)测量很有用。多层(通常为10 - 12层)T2-STIR已广泛用于其测量,通常采用覆盖整个左心室的短轴堆栈(SAX),这可能导致采集时间长和多次屏气。本研究旨在比较三层T2-短反转时间反转恢复(T2-STIR)技术与传统多层T2-STIR技术在评估梗死面积(AAR)方面的差异。
对167例成功进行直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后的患者进行心脏磁共振成像(CMR)检查。82例患者采用新型三层SAX方案,85例患者采用标准的十层SAX方案。通过手动绘制心内膜和心外膜轮廓,然后半自动选择正常心肌来获得AAR;体积由两名独立观察者以质量(%)表示。
85例患者同时接受了十层和三层成像评估,显示两种分析技术之间存在显著且强的相关性(组内相关系数 = 0.92;p < 0.0001),且Bland-Altman界限较低(平均差异 -0.03 ± 3.21%,95%一致性界限,-6.3至6.3)。另外82例患者仅接受了三层成像,三层和十层技术均显示与血管造影风险评分有统计学显著相关性(三层与BARI的r = 0.36,三层与APPROACH的r = 0.42,十层与BARI的r = 0.27,十层与APPROACH的r = 0.46)。三层技术显示出较低的观察者间变异性,与十层方法相当(z = 1.035,p = 0.15)。与十层方法相比,三层方法的采集和分析时间更快(三层中位时间:100秒(四分位间距:65 - 171秒)对十层时间:355秒(四分位间距:275 - 603秒);p < 0.0001)。
使用三层T2-STIR技术测量的AAR与标准的十层技术相关性良好,在评估AAR时无显著偏差。三层技术执行和分析所需时间更少,因此对患者和临床医生都有利。