Prognosis-based definition of left ventricular remodeling after ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
Aged
Area Under Curve
Female
Heart
/ physiopathology
Heart Failure
/ etiology
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Male
Middle Aged
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
/ adverse effects
Prognosis
Proportional Hazards Models
ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction
/ diagnostic imaging
Stroke Volume
Ventricular Function, Left
Ventricular Remodeling
Magnetic resonance imaging
Prognosis
ST-elevation myocardial infarction
Journal
European radiology
ISSN: 1432-1084
Titre abrégé: Eur Radiol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9114774
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
12
07
2018
accepted:
07
11
2018
revised:
17
10
2018
pubmed:
14
12
2018
medline:
30
5
2019
entrez:
15
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is the gold-standard modality for the assessment of left ventricular (LV) remodeling in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. However, the commonly used remodeling criteria have never been validated for hard clinical events. We therefore aimed to define clear CMR criteria of LV remodeling following STEMI with proven prognostic impact. This observational study included 224 patients suffering from acute STEMI. CMR was performed within 1 week and 4 months after infarction to evaluate different remodeling criteria including relative changes in LV end-diastolic volume (%∆LVEDV), end-systolic volume (%∆LVESV), ejection fraction (%∆LVEF), and myocardial mass (%∆LVMM). Primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including all-cause death, re-infarction, stroke, and new congestive heart failure 24 months following STEMI. Secondary endpoint was defined as composite of primary endpoint and cardiovascular hospitalization. The Mann-Whitney U test was applied to assess differences in LV remodeling measures between patients with and without MACE. Values for the prediction of primary and secondary endpoints were assessed by c-statistics and Cox regression analysis. The incidence of MACE (n = 13, 6%) was associated with higher %∆LVEDV (p = 0.002) and %∆LVMM (p = 0.02), whereas %∆LVESV and %∆LVEF were not significantly related to MACE (p > 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) for the prediction of MACE was 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-0.87) for %∆LVEDV (optimal cut-off 10%) and 0.69 (95%CI, 0.52-0.85) for %∆LVMM (optimal cut-off 5%). From all remodeling criteria, %∆LVEDV ≥ 10% showed highest hazard ratio (8.68 [95%CI, 2.39-31.56]; p = 0.001) for MACE. Regarding secondary endpoint (n = 35, 16%), also %∆LVEDV with an optimal threshold of 10% emerged as strongest prognosticator (AUC 0.66; 95%CI, 0.56-0.75; p = 0.004). Following revascularized STEMI, %∆LVEDV ≥ 10% showed strongest association with clinical outcome, suggesting this criterion as preferred CMR-based definition of post-STEMI LV remodeling. • CMR-determined %∆LVEDV and %∆LVMM were significantly associated with MACE following STEMI. • Neither %∆LVESV nor %∆LVEF showed a significant relation to MACE. • %∆LVEDV ≥ 10 was revealed as LV remodeling definition with highest prognostic validity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30547201
doi: 10.1007/s00330-018-5875-3
pii: 10.1007/s00330-018-5875-3
pmc: PMC6443916
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2330-2339Références
Eur Heart J. 2011 Jul;32(13):1640-8
pubmed: 21398642
Cancer. 1950 Jan;3(1):32-5
pubmed: 15405679
Eur Radiol. 2011 Apr;21(4):693-701
pubmed: 20865262
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Sep 23;64(12):1217-26
pubmed: 25236513
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014 Sep;7(9):930-9
pubmed: 25212799
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Aug;28(6):1445-53
pubmed: 21964639
Eur Heart J. 2012 Oct;33(20):2551-67
pubmed: 22922414
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Apr 15;209:17-9
pubmed: 26878466
Am J Cardiol. 2002 Jul 1;90(1):29-34
pubmed: 12088775
Lancet. 2004 Sep 11-17;364(9438):937-52
pubmed: 15364185
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Oct 16;50(16):1532-40
pubmed: 17936151
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Feb;17(2):169-76
pubmed: 26056134
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017 Dec;19(12):1706-1713
pubmed: 28474817
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Jan;18(1):39-45
pubmed: 26976354
Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2017 Oct;6(7):640-649
pubmed: 27440935
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012 Jul 12;14:46
pubmed: 22788728
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Aug 15;241:76-82
pubmed: 28499665
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013 May 01;15:35
pubmed: 23634753
Heart. 2017 Jun;103(11):856-862
pubmed: 27979879
Eur Radiol. 2012 Aug;22(8):1757-68
pubmed: 22447378
Circulation. 1986 Oct;74(4):693-702
pubmed: 3757183
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Nov;13(11):948-53
pubmed: 22531464
Am J Cardiol. 2009 Aug 1;104(3):419-28
pubmed: 19616678
Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2013 Feb;11(2):203-19
pubmed: 23405841
Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013 Apr;29(4):835-42
pubmed: 23179749
Circulation. 1990 Apr;81(4):1161-72
pubmed: 2138525
Int J Cardiol. 2018 Aug 1;264:18-24
pubmed: 29655951
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000 Mar 1;35(3):569-82
pubmed: 10716457
Stroke. 2013 Jul;44(7):2064-89
pubmed: 23652265
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2017 Mar 13;19(1):26
pubmed: 28285594
Circulation. 2002 Oct 29;106(18):2351-7
pubmed: 12403666
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2018 Mar;11(3):411-419
pubmed: 28624398
Open Heart. 2016 Sep 20;3(2):e000485
pubmed: 27738517
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016 Jan;9(1):e004148
pubmed: 26763281
Radiology. 2011 Oct;261(1):116-26
pubmed: 21828188