Comparison of semi-automated methods to quantify infarct size and area at risk by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5T and 3.0T field strengths.

Publisher: Biomed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101462768 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1756-0500 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17560500 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Res Notes Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: London : Biomed Central, 2008.

Contrast Media/*metabolism ; Gadolinium DTPA/*metabolism ; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/*methods ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging/*methods ; Myocardial Infarction/*diagnosis; Adult ; Aged ; Humans ; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging/instrumentation ; Middle Aged ; Myocardial Infarction/pathology ; Myocardial Infarction/physiopathology ; Myocardium/pathology ; Observer Variation ; Retrospective Studies ; Severity of Illness Index ; Stroke Volume ; Ventricular Function, Left

Background: There is currently no gold standard technique for quantifying infarct size (IS) and ischaemic area-at-risk (AAR [oedema]) on late gadolinium enhancement imaging (LGE) and T2-weighted short tau inversion recovery imaging (T2w-STIR) respectively. This study aimed to compare the accuracy and reproducibility of IS and AAR quantification on LGE and T2w-STIR imaging using Otsu's Automated Technique (OAT) with currently used methods at 1.5T and 3.0T post acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).
Methods: Ten patients were assessed at 1.5T and 10 at 3.0T. IS was assessed on LGE using 5-8 standard-deviation thresholding (5-8SD), full-width half-maximum (FWHM) quantification and OAT. AAR was assessed on T2w-STIR using 2SD and OAT. Accuracy was assessed by comparison with manual quantification. Interobserver and intraobserver variabilities were assessed using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients and Bland-Altman analysis. IS using each technique was correlated with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).
Results: FWHM and 8SD-derived IS closely correlated with manual assessment at both field strengths (1.5T: 18.3 ± 10.7% LV Mass [LVM] with FWHM, 17.7 ± 14.4% LVM with 8SD, 16.5 ± 10.3% LVM with manual quantification; 3.0T: 10.8 ± 8.2% LVM with FWHM, 11.4 ± 9.0% LVM with 8SD, 11.5 ± 9.0% LVM with manual quantification). 5SD and OAT overestimated IS at both field strengths. OAT, 2SD and manually quantified AAR closely correlated at 1.5T, but OAT overestimated AAR compared with manual assessment at 3.0T. IS and AAR derived by FWHM and OAT respectively had better reproducibility compared with manual and SD-based quantification. FWHM IS correlated strongest with LVEF.
Conclusions: FWHM quantification of IS is accurate, reproducible and correlates strongly with LVEF, whereas 5SD and OAT overestimate IS. OAT accurately assesses AAR at 1.5T and with excellent reproducibility. OAT overestimated AAR at 3.0T and thus cannot be recommended as the preferred method for AAR quantification at 3.0T.

J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2005;7(5):783-91. (PMID: 16358393)
Eur Heart J. 2005 Mar;26(6):549-57. (PMID: 15713695)
Circulation. 2006 Apr 18;113(15):1821-3. (PMID: 16618830)
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2005;7(2):481-5. (PMID: 15881532)
Scand Cardiovasc J. 2005 Oct;39(5):267-75. (PMID: 16269396)
Circulation. 2006 Apr 18;113(15):1865-70. (PMID: 16606793)
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006 Mar;23(3):309-14. (PMID: 16450368)
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Apr 22;51(16):1581-7. (PMID: 18420102)
Heart. 2008 Jun;94(6):730-6. (PMID: 18070953)
Radiology. 2010 Jan;254(1):88-97. (PMID: 20032144)
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Dec 29;55(1):1-16. (PMID: 20117357)
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2010 Jan;3(1):45-51. (PMID: 20129530)
JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Feb;4(2):150-6. (PMID: 21329899)
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 May;4(3):228-36. (PMID: 21447711)
Magn Reson Med. 2011 Aug;66(2):564-73. (PMID: 21394767)
Radiology. 2011 Oct;261(1):116-26. (PMID: 21828188)
Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011 Nov;4(6):610-9. (PMID: 21911738)
Heart. 2011 Dec;97(24):2038-45. (PMID: 21990384)
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2011;2011:8021-4. (PMID: 22256202)
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:10. (PMID: 22293146)
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2012;14:22. (PMID: 22455461)
Eur Heart J. 2012 Oct;33(20):2569-619. (PMID: 22922416)
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Feb;37(2):382-90. (PMID: 23011840)
EuroIntervention. 2013 Feb 22;8(10):1190-8. (PMID: 23425543)
J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 2013;15:28. (PMID: 23548176)
Trials. 2014;15:371. (PMID: 25252600)
Circulation. 1999 Nov 9;100(19):1992-2002. (PMID: 10556226)
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10. (PMID: 2868172)
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Dec 21;44(12):2383-9. (PMID: 15607402)
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006 Mar;23(3):298-308. (PMID: 16450367)

MC_G1002675 United Kingdom MRC_ Medical Research Council; SP/10/001/28194 United Kingdom BHF_ British Heart Foundation

0 (Contrast Media)
K2I13DR72L (Gadolinium DTPA)

Date Created: 20150419 Date Completed: 20151130 Latest Revision: 20220129

20221213

PMC4347654

10.1186/s13104-015-1007-1

25889795