Cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging of myocardial oedema following acute myocardial infarction: Is whole heart coverage necessary?

Stephen Hamshere, Daniel A. Jones, Cyril Pellaton, Danielle Longchamp, Tom Burchell, Saidi Mohiddin, James C. Moon, Jens Kastrup, Didier Locca, Steffen E. Petersen, Mark Westwood, Anthony Mathur

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.