Three-dimensional assessment of coronary high-intensity plaques with T1-weighted cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging to predict periprocedural myocardial injury after elective percutaneous coronary intervention.
Aged
Biomarkers
/ blood
Coronary Artery Disease
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Cine
Male
Middle Aged
Myocardium
/ metabolism
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
/ adverse effects
Plaque, Atherosclerotic
Predictive Value of Tests
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Treatment Outcome
Troponin T
/ blood
Coronary atherosclerosis
Magnetic resonance imaging
Percutaneous coronary intervention
Journal
Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
ISSN: 1532-429X
Titre abrégé: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9815616
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 01 2020
16 01 2020
Historique:
received:
24
05
2019
accepted:
21
11
2019
entrez:
17
1
2020
pubmed:
17
1
2020
medline:
8
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Periprocedural myocardial injury (pMI) is a common complication of elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) that reduces some of the beneficial effects of coronary revascularization and impacts the risk of cardiovascular events. We developed a 3-dimensional volumetric cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) method to evaluate coronary high intensity plaques and investigated their association with pMI after elective PCI. Between October 2012 and October 2016, 141 patients with stable coronary artery disease underwent T1-weighted CMR imaging before PCI. A conventional 2-dimensional CMR plaque-to-myocardial signal intensity ratio (2D-PMR) and the newly developed 3-dimensional integral of PMR (3Di-PMR) were measured. 3Di-PMR was determined as the sum of PMRs above a threshold of > 1.0 for voxels in a target plaque. pMI was defined as high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T > 0.07 ng/mL. pMI following PCI was observed in 46 patients (33%). 3Di-PMR was significantly higher in patients with pMI than those without pMI. The optimal 3Di-PMR cutoff value for predicting pMI was 51 PMR*mm 3Di-PMR coronary assessment facilitates risk stratification for pMI after elective PCI. retrospectively registered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Periprocedural myocardial injury (pMI) is a common complication of elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) that reduces some of the beneficial effects of coronary revascularization and impacts the risk of cardiovascular events. We developed a 3-dimensional volumetric cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) method to evaluate coronary high intensity plaques and investigated their association with pMI after elective PCI.
METHODS
Between October 2012 and October 2016, 141 patients with stable coronary artery disease underwent T1-weighted CMR imaging before PCI. A conventional 2-dimensional CMR plaque-to-myocardial signal intensity ratio (2D-PMR) and the newly developed 3-dimensional integral of PMR (3Di-PMR) were measured. 3Di-PMR was determined as the sum of PMRs above a threshold of > 1.0 for voxels in a target plaque. pMI was defined as high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T > 0.07 ng/mL.
RESULTS
pMI following PCI was observed in 46 patients (33%). 3Di-PMR was significantly higher in patients with pMI than those without pMI. The optimal 3Di-PMR cutoff value for predicting pMI was 51 PMR*mm
CONCLUSIONS
3Di-PMR coronary assessment facilitates risk stratification for pMI after elective PCI.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
retrospectively registered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31941517
doi: 10.1186/s12968-019-0588-6
pii: 10.1186/s12968-019-0588-6
pmc: PMC6964021
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers
0
Troponin T
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 Aug;7(4):577-84
pubmed: 25074252
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 Jun;2(6):720-8
pubmed: 19520342
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Mar 18;63(10):989-99
pubmed: 24345595
J Interv Cardiol. 2002 Dec;15(6):439-46
pubmed: 12476646
Circulation. 2005 Apr 26;111(16):2099-106
pubmed: 15750189
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Jun;8(6):741-3
pubmed: 25457759
N Engl J Med. 2011 Feb 3;364(5):453-64
pubmed: 21288097
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Nov 7;48(9):1765-70
pubmed: 17084247
Circ J. 2015;79(1):218-20
pubmed: 25342532
N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 12;356(15):1503-16
pubmed: 17387127
N Engl J Med. 2011 Jan 20;364(3):226-35
pubmed: 21247313
Eur Heart J. 2015 Aug 1;36(29):1913-22
pubmed: 26033978
Circulation. 2001 Oct 23;104(17):2051-6
pubmed: 11673345
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Aug 4;54(6):558-65
pubmed: 19643320
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015 Oct;8(10):1143-52
pubmed: 26363839
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016 Sep;9(9):
pubmed: 27578838
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012 Mar;5(3 Suppl):S111-8
pubmed: 22421225
Eur Heart J. 2018 Apr 1;39(13):1100-1109
pubmed: 29365133
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010 May;3(5):540-9
pubmed: 20488411
Eur Heart J. 2019 Jan 7;40(2):87-165
pubmed: 30165437
Circulation. 2004 Sep 14;110(11):1467-72
pubmed: 15353509
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009 May;2(5):580-8
pubmed: 19442944
Circ J. 2005 Oct;69(10):1230-2
pubmed: 16195622
Eur Heart J. 2008 Jul;29(14):1714-20
pubmed: 18559327
Cardiovasc Pathol. 2019 May - Jun;40:24-31
pubmed: 30797186
Circulation. 2003 Jun 24;107(24):3047-52
pubmed: 12796133
Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2019 Jan 1;20(1):75-83
pubmed: 29514171