Aims: 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. Methods and results: 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. Conclusion: In STEMI patients, early-, deferred-, or paired-CMR were equivalent stratification strategies for outcome prediction. Adverse LV remodelling parameters were not independent prognosticators.
Early or deferred cardiovascular magnetic resonance after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction for effective risk stratification / P.G. Masci, A.G. Pavon, G. Pontone, R. Symons, V. Lorenzoni, M. Francone, J. Zalewski, A. Barison, M. Guglielmo, G.D. Aquaro, N. Galea, G. Muscogiuri, O. Muller, I. Carbone, A. Baggiano, J.F. Iglesias, J. Nessler, D. Andreini, P.G. Camici, P. Claus, L.d. Luca, L. Agati, S. Janssens, J. Schwitter, J. Bogaert. - In: EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL. CARDIOVASCULAR IMAGING. - ISSN 2047-2404. - 21:6(2020 Jun 01), pp. 632-639. [10.1093/ehjci/jez179]
Early or deferred cardiovascular magnetic resonance after ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction for effective risk stratification
G. Pontone;A. Baggiano;D. Andreini;
2020
Abstract
Aims: 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. Methods and results: 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. Conclusion: In STEMI patients, early-, deferred-, or paired-CMR were equivalent stratification strategies for outcome prediction. Adverse LV remodelling parameters were not independent prognosticators.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Early or deferred.pdf
accesso riservato
Tipologia:
Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione
469.59 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
469.59 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
jez179.pdf
accesso riservato
Tipologia:
Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione
474.5 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
474.5 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.