Scholarly article on topic 'Myocardial edema contrast in acute myocardial infarction: a comparative study of the sensitivity of different CMR Methods'

Myocardial edema contrast in acute myocardial infarction: a comparative study of the sensitivity of different CMR Methods Academic research paper on "Medical engineering"

Share paper
OECD Field of science

Academic research paper on topic "Myocardial edema contrast in acute myocardial infarction: a comparative study of the sensitivity of different CMR Methods"

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic

Resonance mom«! centrai

Open Access

Poster presentation

Myocardial edema contrast in acute myocardial infarction: a comparative study of the sensitivity of different CMR Methods

Xiangzhi Zhou*1, Veronica Rundell1, Ying Liu1, Richard Tang1, Rachel Klein1 Shivraman Giri2, Saurabh Shah3, Sven Zuehlsdorff3, Orlando Simonetti2, Debiao Li1 and Rohan Dharmakumar1

Address: iNorthwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA, 2Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA and 3Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA * Corresponding author

from 13th Annual SCMR Scientific Sessions Phoenix, AZ, USA. 21 -24 January 2010

Published: 21 January 2010

Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 2010, 12(Suppl l):P208 doi:l0.ll 86/ I532-429X-I2-SI-P208

This abstract is available from: © 20I0 Zhou et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.


A number of CMR imaging approaches have been proposed for detecting myocardial edema accompanying acute myocardial infarctions (AMI). Besides the most commonly employed T2-weighted STIR (T2-STIR), T2-prepared SSFP (T2-prep SSFP) and cine SSFP (bSSFP) methods have also been proposed. To quantitatively assess myocardial edema, the utility of T1 and T2 maps has been described. However, the relative sensitivities of the various approaches in relation to the routinely used, T2-STIR, method is not fully known.


To assess the sensitivity of T1 and T2 maps, as well as T2-prep SSFP and bSSFP methods against T2-STIR, for detecting myocardial edema in the setting of AMI.


Dogs (n = 3) subjected to an ischemia-reperfusion injury (LAD occlusion for 3 hours followed by reperfusion) were studied 2-hours post reperfusion (day 0), and on days 2, 5, and 7. Multiple breath-held and ECG-triggered T2-STIR, T2-prep SSFP, and bSSFP images and the corresponding T2- and T1-maps were acquired using a Siemens 1.5 T system. All acquisitions, except bSSFP, were acquired in mid-diastole; bSSFP images were acquired in the cine mode. Scan parameters for the various edema-weighted acquisitions are summarized in Figure 1. All scans were termi-

nated with a late-enhancement acquisition to confirm the presence of LAD infarction. A semi-quantitative approach was used to identify hyperintense (edema) territories and the mean signal intensity in the edematous (E) and healthy (remote) territories (H) were computed. Myocar-dial edema contrast (MEC) on each slice was computed as, MEC = (E-H)/H. Normalized MEC was computed by dividing MEC obtained from the different methods by MEC of T2-STIR images. This was performed on a slice-by-slice basis and averaged across all studies. Statistical analysis (one-way ANOVA, significance P < 0.01) was used to compare the normalized contrast between the different methods.


On all CMR methods studied, myocardial edema was detected as regions of hyperintensity (Figure 2). Relative to T2-maps, T1-maps had lower MEC. However, both T1 and T2 maps had lower MEC relative to T2-STIR. Normalized MEC between T2-STIR, T2-Prep, and bSSFP did not show any statistically significant differences. T2-STIR normalized MEC among the different methods are shown in Figure 3.


T1 and T2 maps appear to have lower sensitivity for identifying myocardial edema compared to T2-STIR, while no difference was found among T2-STIR, T2-Prep, and bSSFP

Scan parameters

T1 map1 IR with 11 Tl from approximately 80ms to 4000ms; SSFP readout (TR/TE=2.4/1.2ms, Flip angle=35\ BW=1000Hz/pixel, resolution=1.3X1.3X8.0mm3)

T2 map2 T2 Prep. Time=0,24 and 55ms; SSFP readout (TR/TE=2.2/l.lms, Flip angle=70°, BW=1490Hz/pixel, resolution=1.9X1.9X8.0mm3)

STIR* Tl=170ms, TSE readout (echo train length=15, TE=64ms, BW=235Hz/pixel, resolution^,9X0.9X8.0mmJ)

T2-Prep4 T2 Prep. Time=55ms; SSFP readout (TR/TE=2.2/1.1ms, Flipangle=70", BW=1490Hz/pixel, resolution=1.9X1.9X8.0mm3)

bSSFPs TR/TE=3.5/1.7ms, Flip angle=70°, BW=930Hz/pixel, resolution=1.25X 1.25x8.0mm3,

'Messroghli et al MRM 2004; 'Gin et at SCMR 2009; 'Hassan et at Circ 2004; 'Kellman et al MRM 2007; Kumar et al ISMRM 2008.

Figure 1

Imaging parameters used with the various approaches of CMR assessment of myocardial edema.


Representative short-axis T1 (A) and T2 (B) maps and T2-STIR (C), T2-prep SSF (D), and bSSP (E) images obtained from a canine with ischemia-reperfusion injury (day 0, 2 hours poest reperfusion). Note that both relaxation maps and edema-weighted images delineate the edematous territory as regions of hyperintensity.

methods. In addition to the sensitivity consideration, the most robust CMR method for identifying myocardial edema will also require a comparative assessment of the specificity of the different methods.

Imaging Method


T2- STIR normalized myocardial edema contrast over all imaging studies in canines with AMI.

Publish with BioMed Central and every scientist can read your work free of charge

"BioMed Central will be the most significant development for disseminating the results of biomedical research in our lifetime." Sir Paul Nurse, Cancer Research UK

Your research papers will be:

• available free of charge to the entire biomedical community

• peer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptance

• cited in PubMed and archived on PubMed Central

• yours — you keep the copyright

Submit your manuscript here: f J BioMedcentral ^