Early or deferred cardiovascular magnetic resonance after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction for effective risk stratification.
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Myocardial Infarction
/ diagnostic imaging
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
Predictive Value of Tests
Risk Assessment
ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction
/ diagnostic imaging
Treatment Outcome
Ventricular Function, Left
Ventricular Remodeling
Cardiovascular magnetic resonance
Risk stratification
ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
TIMI risk score
Journal
European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging
ISSN: 2047-2412
Titre abrégé: Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101573788
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2020
01 06 2020
Historique:
received:
05
02
2019
revised:
04
04
2019
accepted:
20
06
2019
pubmed:
22
7
2019
medline:
29
6
2021
entrez:
22
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) holds the potentiality to improve risk stratification in addition to Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk score. Nevertheless, the optimal timing for CMR after STEMI remains poorly defined. We aim at comparing the prognostic performance of three stratification strategies according to the timing of CMR after STEMI. The population of this prospective registry-based study included 492 reperfused STEMI patients. All patients underwent post-reperfusion (median: 4 days post-STEMI) and follow-up (median: 4.8 months post-STEMI) CMR. Left ventricular (LV) volumes, function, infarct size, and microvascular obstruction extent were quantified. Primary endpoint was a composite of all-death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Baseline-to-follow-up percentage increase of LV end-diastolic (EDV; ΔLV-EDV) ≥20% or end-systolic volumes (ESV; ΔLV-ESV) ≥15% were tested against outcome. Three multivariate models were developed including TIMI risk score plus early post-STEMI (early-CMR) or follow-up CMR (deferred-CMR) or both CMRs parameters along with adverse LV remodelling (paired-CMRs). During a median follow-up of 8.3 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 84 patients (47 deaths; 37 HF hospitalizations). Early-CMR, deferred-CMR, and paired-CMR demonstrated similar predictive value for the primary endpoint (C-statistic: 0.726, 0.728, and 0.738, respectively; P = 0.663). ΔLV-EDV ≥20% or ΔLV-ESV ≥15% were unadjusted outcome predictors (hazard ratio: 2.020 and 2.032, respectively; P = 0.002 for both) but lost their predictive value when corrected for other covariates in paired-CMR model. In STEMI patients, early-, deferred-, or paired-CMR were equivalent stratification strategies for outcome prediction. Adverse LV remodelling parameters were not independent prognosticators.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31326993
pii: 5536555
doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jez179
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
632-639Informations de copyright
Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.